GH13 M4/3 Lenses so expensive compared to Canon...what benefits to the M4/3 Format?

B

bronxjragon

Well-known member
I originally bought a GH1/GH13 with the kit lens in November 2009 because no way in hell I could afford a 5D Mark 2.

I recently bought a Pancake lens again...for $415! The first time I bought one a few months ago was used for $225!

Anyway I was looking for a wide angle lens for my GH1 and the best I could find with autofocus was the Lumix 7-14mm. The price is $900+.Yes, I know I can do a C-mount and use a TV lens, but honestly, autofocus IS important to me. I rather autofocus a scene before switching it to manual -- the AF is pretty incredible and its an important feature to me. When I do interviews I don't like fiddling with rack focusing and all that jazz. It saves that much more time for me. To each their own, but AF is there for a reason (of course I couldn't live without my Canon 50mm f1.4 though!...amazing combo with GH1)!

On the otherhand, a Samyang 14mm f2.8 for Canon costs $400 ish.

In the end, yes the M4/3 bodies are relatively cheap compared to a 7D or 5d Mark II, but when getting equivalent lenses for each camera, wouldn't it be a wash? Visually both formats produce stunning results. But the photography on the Canons as we know are light years ahead of M4/3.

I guess my question is -- is it worth continuing to invest in M4/3 lenses? I plan to always keep my GH1 and the lenses that I do have -- the 14-140mm is amazing for outdoors, the 20mm that I have re-acquired was the perfect case of "if you love something let it go"....I wanted it back soon after...didn't appreciate til it was gone! The Sigma 24mm f2.8 just didn't cut it....so many blurry photos taken with it....again AF so crucial and that split second auto-focusing is the difference between capturing a moment and not. But if I went Canon, a 24mm AF lens would be so accessible and affordable compared to M4/3. I'm not rolling in dough, but I think realistically going with Canon would be more future proof. Panasonic has tripped up like WHOA.
 
But the Samyang doesn't have AF, nor electronic coupling. And comparing the crop factor is silly. If you're actually going to go to spend that much on a fullframe you're going to get a better lens than the Samyang, you're more likely to buy the USM which is how much?
 
bronxjragon said:
I originally bought a GH1/GH13 with the kit lens in November 2009 because no way in hell I could afford a 5D Mark 2.

I recently bought a Pancake lens again...for $415! The first time I bought one a few months ago was used for $225!

Anyway I was looking for a wide angle lens for my GH1 and the best I could find with autofocus was the Lumix 7-14mm. The price is $900+.Yes, I know I can do a C-mount and use a TV lens, but honestly, autofocus IS important to me. I rather autofocus a scene before switching it to manual -- the AF is pretty incredible and its an important feature to me. When I do interviews I don't like fiddling with rack focusing and all that jazz. It saves that much more time for me. To each their own, but AF is there for a reason (of course I couldn't live without my Canon 50mm f1.4 though!...amazing combo with GH1)!

On the otherhand, a Samyang 14mm f2.8 for Canon costs $400 ish.

In the end, yes the M4/3 bodies are relatively cheap compared to a 7D or 5d Mark II, but when getting equivalent lenses for each camera, wouldn't it be a wash? Visually both formats produce stunning results. But the photography on the Canons as we know are light years ahead of M4/3.

I guess my question is -- is it worth continuing to invest in M4/3 lenses? I plan to always keep my GH1 and the lenses that I do have -- the 14-140mm is amazing for outdoors, the 20mm that I have re-acquired was the perfect case of "if you love something let it go"....I wanted it back soon after...didn't appreciate til it was gone! The Sigma 24mm f2.8 just didn't cut it....so many blurry photos taken with it....again AF so crucial and that split second auto-focusing is the difference between capturing a moment and not. But if I went Canon, a 24mm AF lens would be so accessible and affordable compared to M4/3. I'm not rolling in dough, but I think realistically going with Canon would be more future proof. Panasonic has tripped up like WHOA.
Click to expand...

That Samyang 14mm is a great budget lens (so I've heard) but it also has noticeable distortion.
Its not a fish eye but you can definately see the distortion on straight lines etc.
The Panny 7-14 doesn't have this much distortion at 11mm* which would be the equivalent focal length.
Also the Samyang does not autofocus.

*(14mm x 1.6 Crop = 22.4mm || 11mm x 2 Crop = 22mm)*

Arguably the only full frame lens comparable to the Panny is the Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8 II USM Autofocus Lens for $1,679.95
For a Crop Sensor cam the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens would be appropriate for $829.00
This lens doesnt have constant aperture however which the Panny does.

Neither of these lenses offer full time autofocus during video recording which the Panny is built to support.
But they are all generally comparable to one another.
The real difference between m4/3 and other formats isn't cost but its size and weight.
If you want bigger/heavier lenses without video autofocus then by all means go Canon/Nikon.
 
Dazza said:
But the Samyang doesn't have AF, nor electronic coupling. And comparing the crop factor is silly. If you're actually going to go to spend that much on a fullframe you're going to get a better lens than the Samyang, you're more likely to buy the USM which is how much?
Click to expand...

Thats exactly my response as well. The Full Frame lens costs twice as much literally for more than twice the weight.
 
Right, by no means was I bashing on GH1, in fact I was trying to find reasons to stick with the M4/3 format, but if the writing was on the wall that adopting and sticking with this format would actually cost more in the long run I would've gone canon.
 
You mentioned two 24mm examples soon thereafter - and wasn't the true crop factor established to be around 1.8? That puts the 14mm on the outside cusp of what you are looking for.
 
texasranger000 said:
You mentioned two 24mm examples soon thereafter - and wasn't the true crop factor established to be around 1.8? That puts the 14mm on the outside cusp of what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Well I did a quick look online and I actually get a 2.1X crop compared to the 5D MKII via AbelCineTech's Field of View Calculator
I have now heard many numbers (1.98...2.0...1.9...1.8) however some take the 16:9 video crop into consideration (?) and I'm guessing some do not.
 
I think the m4/3rds lenses are well priced compared to Canon and Nikon equivelants, however there just aren't enough of them around yet. Getting industry standard lenses like a 70-200mm f/2.8 (just about every serious photographer has one of these in their kit) or a 17-50 f/2.8 is not yet possible (natively).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top