What 4/3 lenses do you use with your E-M1?

[beameup]

When I purchased my E-M1, I had no m4/3 lenses. I ended up using the 14-54mm II lens, and selling off the other 4/3 lenses.
I feel that this 4/3 lens meets most of my needs and feels "just right" on the E-M1. I normally use it in the 25-35mm range.
Since then, I have only purchased the two "body-cap" lenses (9mm "fisheye" and 15mm) "just for fun".

[RAH]

I don't use any of my 4/3 lenses on my E-M10 (even though I have a bunch, including a 14-54I) because I appreciate the smaller size of dedicated m4/3 lenses.


I would suggest that you consider adding the Panasonic m4/3 20mm f1.7 to your setup. It is extremely popular, very fast, very small, and very sharp, and is close to the focal length you seem to like. You can get a used one for about $200.

[Big Greg]

I use all my 4/3 lenses, mainly the 14-35 and 35-100, but I haven't replaced any of my 4/3 lenses with m4/3 lenses. I did pick up the 45 and 75 1.8 lenses for their small size and low light capabilities and have a Rokinon 85MM 1.4 and 7.5 35 fisheye (both are manual focus) in m4/3 mounts.

I held off on getting the E-M1 until the firmware was updated to provide fast AF with 4/3 lenses and did not buy it for its small size, I bought it because its imaging capabilities were significantly better than the e-3 and e-30 which were my last 4/3 bodies.

[Michael Meissner]

I have the original classic HH lenses (14-54mm mark I, 11-22mm, 50mm macro, and 50-200mm mark I) and some SG lenses (70-300mm, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, and now 9-18mm). I bought the E-M1 specifically to use with the 50-200mm with/without the EC-14. At the time I purchased it, it was several hundred dollars cheaper than buying the 40-150mm pro f/2.8 m4/3 lens.

I bought the classic 9-18mm to use with the m4/3rds cameras, but after reading about the horror stories of the adapters going out of adjustment for ultra wide angle lenses( including one person that went through 2 MMF-3's), I eventually bought the micro 4/3rds 9-18mm, specifically for the vacation in Hawaii that I'm on now. I don't use the 9-18mm as much as I thought I would, but I do have one use in the summer time when it would be an advantage (shooting stage shows from the front rows).

After using the 12-40mm pro f/2.8 for a year, I have very little inclination to use 14-54mm mark I or 11-22mm on micro 4/3rds. Similarly, the 45mm f/1.8 generally takes the place of the 50mm. Over all, I haven't used the 50mm much in the last 3 years or so, even when I still was shooting the E-5 regularly.

[RAH]

I bought the classic 9-18mm to use with the m4/3rds cameras, but after reading about the horror stories of the adapters going out of adjustment for ultra wide angle lenses( including one person that went through 2 MMF-3's), I eventually bought the micro 4/3rds 9-18mm

I am one of the people who had VERY bad luck with an out-of-alignment 4/3 to m43 adapter with the 4/3 9-18 lens. But I had a Vello (B&H brand) adapter. This is the first post that I have seen mentioning bad luck with the "official" adapters from Oly or Panasonic. I wound up buying a m43 9-18, so it doesn't much matter to me, but I always kind of figured that the official adapters would be OK, being more expensive. Yikes!! I'm glad you mentioned this.

[BobT]

I bought the classic 9-18mm to use with the m4/3rds cameras, but after reading about the horror stories of the adapters going out of adjustment for ultra wide angle lenses( including one person that went through 2 MMF-3's), I eventually bought the micro 4/3rds 9-18mm, specifically for the vacation in Hawaii that I'm on now.

Perhaps this explains my lacklustre experience with the 50-200mm on the E-M1. Please tell us more?

[RAH]

Perhaps this explains my lacklustre experience with the 50-200mm on the E-M1. Please tell us more?

Probably not because it seems to only be a problem with ultra-wide lenses like the 9-18. I started a thread on this forum about this topic, here:

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/thr...8-on-m4-3-body

In my 8/23/16 entry in that thread, I mention a thread on another forum that has a lot more info and more conclusive conclusions:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/zuiko-...ko-9-18.84959/

I would take a look there too. By the way, BobT, you made an entry in that thread on this forum, so it seems as though you have already looked at it, perhaps hoping back then that it would help you with your 50-200 problem. I suppose it IS possible that such adapter problems could affect a lens of that focal length, and not just ultra-wides, but I would think that the adapter would have to be VERY out of alignment for that to happen. I mean, for example, my 14-54 4/3 lens seems sharp on a m4/3 camera with the same Vello adapter that causes HORRIBLE results with my 9-18 (see the above threads to see why the general agreement is that it is the adapter that is at fault, NOT the lens).

[Michael Meissner]

Perhaps this explains my lacklustre experience with the 50-200mm on the E-M1. Please tell us more?

As RAH says, the problem only seems to appear with the wide lenses (i.e. Olympus/Panasonic 7-14mm, Olympus 9-18, Sigma 10-whatever). Around 14mm or so the problem seems to disappear. I have not experienced it myself.

I've had problems with the 50-200mm mark I with/without EC-14 when there is little contrast, such as whale watches, and I typically would switch to the micro 4/3rds 14-150mm mark II, and it would focus better. But when I took it to Hawaii, I had no problem on locking on surfers (since there is typically a lot more contrast, including the surf and the surfer).

[Guy Roberts]

I bought my em1 second hand with the 12-40. I've got a few 4/3 lenses as I have an e5, so I use the 50 macro, the 7-14 and the 50-200, all without any noticeable problem. It kind of defeats the whole size advantage of the m4/3 format though. I compared the 14-35 against the 12-40 and could not see any difference at 100% crop.

[BobT]

I bought my em1 second hand with the 12-40. I've got a few 4/3 lenses as I have an e5, so I use the 50 macro, the 7-14 and the 50-200, all without any noticeable problem. It kind of defeats the whole size advantage of the m4/3 format though. I compared the 14-35 against the 12-40 and could not see any difference at 100% crop.

I sold my beloved 50mm macro in favour of the m4/3 60mm macro. The extra reach makes tight macros easier. the 60mm is also nearly half the weight of the 50mm macro. One looses a stop but for macros I'm mostly looking for greater DOF anyway. Having said that, the 50mm macro was a good walk around lens whereas the 60mm macro not so much. One also looses weatherproofing but for me that is not such an issue.

[Michael Meissner]

I sold my beloved 50mm macro in favour of the m4/3 60mm macro. The extra reach makes tight macros easier. the 60mm is also nearly half the weight of the 50mm macro. One looses a stop but for macros I'm mostly looking for greater DOF anyway. Having said that, the 50mm macro was a good walk around lens whereas the 60mm macro not so much. One also looses weatherproofing but for me that is not such an issue.

Ummm, the Olympus micro 4/3rds 60mm macro lens is weather sealed, like the 50mm 4/3rds lens.

[BobT]

Ummm, the Olympus micro 4/3rds 60mm macro lens is weather sealed, like the 50mm 4/3rds lens.

You are right. I just assumed it wasn't because of the price.