E-P1 owners your dream lens has arrived

If you own an E-P1 you absolutely owe it to yourself to get this lens right now. I used to own the 17mm and loved its size but found the image quality lacking. There are plenty of detailed reviews of this 20mm lens out there so I'll spare the tech details.



I've had this for a little over a week and the performance is just amazing. Auto focus speed is very good not super speedy but definitely not slow. Images look sharp even wide open with lovely bokeh. It's not quite as nice as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 for 4/3 but it is half the price and 1/4 of the size.



I have some good glass like the Olympus 50mm f2 and Olympus 14-52 mark II 2.8-3.5 via the adapter but those will probably stay on my E-620 since this Panasonic 20mm fits the E-P1 like a glove.



It's amazing how this lens makes the E-P1 come alive like no other lens I've used on it before.More detail ...

Plain review in plain terms with sample shots

The short version:



Pros:

The optical quality is great the speed is terrific and it compares well to the 70-200mm lens that people like to say blows this out of the water (I believe they are wrong - but we will get into that later) and finally the price cannot be beaten. Buy it.



Cons:

No hood extends as it zooms and the quality of the picture in low light situation lessens a little.



The long version:



I am writing this in simple terms. I found several several reviews on this lens but they were all in technical terms and leaves you scratching your head a little. So if you are like me maybe this review will help you.



I bought this lens a couple months ago from US1Photo.com (check these guys out. They regularly have significant sales and terrific customer service). I use this lens with a Canon 40D.



I take several types and styles of pictures so I needed a lens that would do the best job at several things and have a very affordable price (right at or less than $1000). I looked through new used third party (Tamron Sigma etc) lenses and read too many reviews and looked at too many images to count and spent four hours in a photography store playing with lenses before I decided to spend money and take advantage of this lens. All in all I spent about a week's worth of time in research and testing before I bought this lens.



---

Edit:

Okay so amazon won't let me put a link here. This is how you find me.

~Go to Flickr

~Then type in a "/" then "photos" then "/" and last type in "gman_five0"

And that should take you there.

---



Test of comment #1:

~The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM does not track moving objects very well and the farther to the end of the zoom the slower the tracking.



(Flickr Gallery page 2)



This I have found to be completely wrong. I have used the lens at several sporting events and found that it tracks rather nicely. I was able to track every step of a base-runner from first base to second slide and recovery after the play without losing ONE shot.



To see what I am talking about check out my gallery on Flickr. The older ones are NOT done with this lens or camera and taken actually several years ago. I will reference the pictures in question.



Safe Got There By a Mile Breaking Up That Double Play (please note that as time goes on from the date that this was posted the pictures may have been re-moved). Also "Safe" was used instead of another shot taken at the same time and angle with a 70-200mm IS lens.



To take these shots I used "AI focus" and the "H" settings on my camera for quicker tracking and the H settings for about 6 frames per second.



Test of Comment #2:

~The 200-300mm range is nice in theory but a tack-sharp photo from the 70-200mm f/4L at 200mm is going to look better cropped than a 300mm full-frame photo from this lens.



Again I found this to be wrong. Though I have no actual "full sized" picture for this if you comment back with an email address then we can arrange a viewing of one. Otherwise take my word for it I own several lenses and this one stacks up well.



(Ref Flickr Gallery)



The pictures from the Dance Theater and Tashina were all taken at the 200-300mm focus lengths. Again they are not full sized because of photo pirates but if you email me we can see about full sized shots.



Test of Comment #3:

~The IS motor is loud



I do not know what these people are talking about but if you call that loud...

On the other hand I have heard (once) the sound of the IS motor but if you are not listening for it you will not even notice it.



Things I have found about the lens:



If you spend some time with the lens will be one of your best friends. It is a great lens especially for people on a budget (like me). To take the best pictures you cannot just twist it on and go to shooting. Take the time to LEARN about the lens (change shutter speeds ISO settings aperture white balances etc) and it will show you where it shines - just like the L series lenses and the 70-200mm IS.



This lens has a solid make and feels like it will last forever. Then again as you zoom the lens does extend and is plastic. So watch out if you are doing sports. You may get it knocked off. It did well for me though. Extending while zooming makes putting a hood on the lens a bit (very little; so little that you cannot tell) awkward and it looks kinda goofy.



I like the lens because it is not as bulky as the 70-200mm lens and it is extremely mobile. It is as quick as some other lenses not as quick as some and quicker than others. It will give you great quality pictures. It does have its limits however: in low light situations not being able to take it back a couple stops and get a wider aperture will not give you the same shot as a 70-200mm. Then again like I said it doesn't drop to that f/2.8 and does not cost all that money. This has been the single drawback for me about the lens.



I use this lens for portraits (Tashina Samantha) for sports (see gallery) and music (Shawn Pander - See Gallery). So it's pretty versatile. I have yet to use with it flash but that is because I simply do not like to use flash. I have yet to use it in a studio setting but when I do I will amend this review and add a couple of those pictures as well.



This lens comes highly recommended from me. I am not a big time highly paid or well known photographer. I just like to shoot and like what I shoot to be of the best quality that I can have AND afford at the time. So if you are like me and cannot spend the needed $1500 - $1700 on a 70-200mm IS lens then spend your money on this lens. You will not be sorry for it.

---



On another note comments are welcome. This is my first ever review on here so let me know if there anything else that you would like to know about and I will do my best to answer the question in the most plain terms as possible.

More detail ...

Very Nice Lens But it Has its Quirks

After exhaustive research on many lens I finally decided to plunk down the $500+ (at the time this was written) to purchase this lens. It may not be the best on the market but it compliments my Nikon 18-70mm DX lens nicely. I was looking towards Nikon's 18-200mm DX lens however; the price pushed me to choose this one (as it was nearly half the price and my two lens can nearly cover all the range of the one 18-200mm).



QUALITY/WEIGHT:



build quality is cheap yet sturdy... the plastic is a little chinky but cuts down on the weight. My Nikon D200 has no problem handling the lens weight however; I have heard (unconfirmed) reports that this lens is a little heavy for the lighter cameras (D80 D70 D40 ETC). The Ring Connector is metal and has a rubber gasket on the outside so as to provide minor protection (for the lens mount) from the elements.



You also have to keep this in mind when discussing weight quality & price; the bulk of the price of this lens is going into the glass elements (all 17 elements of them). It gets expensive when you place that many high-quality optics into a tube. I'm really not that surprised a the price although $400 price-range would probably be more suitable for this lens



FOCUSING/LENS ATTRIBUTES:



Focusing can be quite fast... at times. You'll find at the Max 300mm focal range that the lens has a pretty hard time auto-focusing in on a subject. At times it would focus pretty quick at the 300mm range while at others it cannot focus at all. You can get around this quirk by bringing the subject into near focus (manually) then letting the auto-focus take over; it works every time. I find this focus problem disappointing especially given the price of this lens.



The quality of the Bokeh (Out of focus areas of the photograph) is very nice and pleasing. The images are sharp vignetting (dark areas in the corner of your photos) is hard to find and lens flare rarely a problem.



VIBRATION STABILIZATION:



All I can say is that it works... it can come in handy. It's not going to stop the image guaranteed for you; it's only meant to slow down the rate at which the camera moves (vibration from holding). You can notice the difference; with it off you'll see that the image (at say 300mm) really bouncing around; then you flick on VR. It takes a sec or two but then the image smooths out it still wobbles around but much more slowly.



With VR enabled you can usually go 2-3 (sometimes 4) stops down then what you'd normally be able to do when hand holding.



THE "SHOCK" TEST:



I haven't "shock tested" my lens yet (IE dropped it) but I have heard (again unconfirmed reports here) that it holds up pretty well to a drop... although I would never recommend testing that out.



IMPORTANT NOTE:



The 70-300mm range should be noted: Although the lens states that it is a 70-300mm zoom this lens was intended for a 35mm camera or full-frame CCD/CMOS sensor Digital Camera. All (or at least the majority) of Nikon's DSLR (D200 D80 ETC) are NOT Full-Frame sensors. They are approximately 1.5x factor of a full-frame sensor (due to the smaller sensor size).



What does this all mean?



Well it's simple since this is a 35mm lens and not a DX lens (ie built to account for the 1.5x factor in most nikon digitals) you have to apply the 1.5x conversion. This means that the Nikon 70-300mm on a Nikon DSLR will give an apparent zoom equivalent to a 105-450mm lens. I actually do not mind this apparent zoom and this should also cut down on vignetting; as what the lens projects onto the sensor is larger then the area of the sensor itself. In short: parts of the image spills over the sensor since this lens was meant to project onto a full-frame sensor/35mm film.



CONCLUSION:



Pros:

Pleasing Bokeh

Fast Auto-Focus (when working properly)

Vignetting is minimal

Image Stabilization (VR)

Flare is minimal

1.5x factor (105-450mm) makes for nice zoom

Colors are very good



CONS:

Plastic Casing

Near Inability to Auto-Focus at 300mm range

Price (even though it is cheaper then the 18-200mm DX)

1.5x factor (105-450mm) might make it more zoom then you need

Lens could be faster (F/4 would have been nice)



I love this lens even for it's quirks however; you may want to wait till it drops in price a little more (it falls almost bi-weekly). It may not be the fastest on the market but it's size optics image quality and VR make this a must have lens for Serious Nikon users!More detail ...

Is this lens as bad as some people say it is?

No it's not especially if you take into account its intended users. If you use a Canon digital SLR and are satisfied with the kit lens (18-55) then buying this lens can be the perfect next step for you. Practically speaking you will be able to increase your zoom reach to the point where you can A) photograph birds in moderately distant trees B) be able to zoom in on the other side of a valley and frame something of your interest. Those are just two examples. One thing you will NOT be able to do effectively with this lens however is to take sport shots with it. How so? Consider some of the following weakness:



*At 300mm zoom range the highest aperture is limited to 5.6 (You will have to use very slow shutter speed to snap fast action shots; remember the inverse relation between aperture and shutter speed.)

*The lens size/weight combination makes it hard to hold steady when attached to a camera like the Rebel XT

*Slow and often inaccurate auto focus (I just don't understand why Canon makes a USM version of this lens for $20 more but never includes it in the triple rebate program)

*Chromatic aberration is significant in high contrast lighting like in full sun (if you do not know what Chromatic aberration means search the term online or check out my review of the Canon 28mm 2.8 on Amazon but to summarize it would be a discoloration at the fringes of objects in your picture)



Those kinds of weakness will limit your ability to use this lens in all sorts of other situations/circumstances. As a practical rule to follow if the lighting is less than ideal this lens will give you a hard time. Meaning it will be possible to use it but you may get too many blurry images because of shake from slow shutter speeds. As for what are ideal lighting conditions? That would be full sun with few or no clouds and with the light bathing your subject/object from the front or the side.



So is this lens that bad? Not really as with many other lenses when the lens is coupled with a good camera it still out performs most Point and Shoot cameras. Plus it provides results at par or slightly below the kit lens (18-55). So if you are satisfied with your kit lens which provides you with a zoom range comparable to 3X zoom (55/18= 3) why not add another lens that will expand your zoom range by another 4X (300/75=4)? Nothing wrong with expanding your horizon!



PS. TWO MORE POINTS ABOUT USING THIS LENS: First if you're confident you can handhold this lens at slow shutter speeds (I know I can't) then the low maximum aperture shouldn't be a major problem. Second if you're fine shooting at high ISO (more like 400 or 800) then again the low maximum aperture shouldn't be a problem. The nice thing about photography is that you can do one thing in so many ways so don't be afraid to explore with this lens!More detail ...

Why spend more?

With the 50mm f1.8 lens available for less than a hundred dollars why spend so much more to get the f1.4? The answer is you may not need to. It all depends on your seriousness budget and how long you need your lens to last.



If you want a "starter lens" for shooting at 50mm (or with prime lenses in general) the f1.8 would be a great buy. 50mm is a very useful and intuitive focal length to spend some time with because it sees the world at the same distance as your naked eye (regardless of your camera's crop factor). So you could buy the f1.8 cheaply regard it as a "play with it" lens and get a nice introduction to "prime lens quality." The f1.8 will seem like a substantial step up from kit lenses and most consumer-priced zooms and amazing bang for few bucks.



So if the f1.8 is such a great bargain why would the f1.4 be among Canon's most all-time popular lenses? It's that the f1.8 can take the great shot within certain conditions but the f1.4 delivers within a much wider range of conditions. In other words "You get what you pay for" and we'll save the best for last.



Affordable-but-Solid Contruction: The f1.4 will likely have a much longer life than the cheaper plastic build of the f1.8 and retain more resale value. It's an investment rather than a commodity. And it'll be more certain on your camera and in your hand. (My first one finally needed some calibration after 80000 shots and extreme wear-and-tear from frequent swapping with my other primes.) Users sometimes report the front glass falling out of their f1.8s. For the f1.4 the main issues revolve around the Micro USM focus motor which is not as sturdy as true USM.



Focus Versatility: The f1.4 lets your camera autofocus and then lets you tweak further by hand without flipping a switch - that's called "Full-Time Manual Focus." The f1.8 requires switching back and forth between auto and manual focus. The f1.8 is famously noisy/buzzy during autofocus has a bare-minimum focus ring and no distance scale. The f1.4 will autofocus more reliably especially in dim light though it will fail occasionally when starved.



Resistance to Abberation: Chromatic abberation (fringe colors) and barrel distortion are evident-but-low for both lenses at wide apertures - that's "prime lens quality." But in comparison tests the f1.8 is more susceptible to vignetting (shadows around the corners) halation (glowing around the highlights) and lens flare. For instance lens flare within the f1.4 tends to be more tightly controlled - "in focus" - whereas a bright light source is more like to blow out the whole shot in the f1.8. All these factors improve when stopped down but lag about a stop behind the f1.4.



Color: However if the f1.8 catches up at f/8 to the f1.4 by many standards it rarely catches up to the f1.4's saturation. The f1.4 has "proper-to-strong" color richness at all but the widest apertures while the f1.8's shots are much more likely to require postwork. (I do however get better saturation from my 24mm f2.8 and 100mm Macro f2.8. The 50 f1.4's saturation seems good-not-great by comparison.)



"Headroom": The engineering of both lenses lets you choose the tradeoff between "most possible light" or "most possible clarity." It's by design that you can choose "more light for less crisp" or stop down for sharpness. *Samples vary* but the average 50mm f1.4 should consistently "get down to sharp" more quickly "sharp enough" by f/2.0 "very very sharp" by f/2.8 (often exceeding the professional 24-70mm f2.8 L when wide open) and delivering "unreal sharp" by f/4. (I saw insane "specks of mascara sharpness" at f/3.5 from my first f1.4.) Again the f1.8 will probably lag about a stop behind that curve.



My second 50mm f1.4 performed even better than my first right out of the box "marginally sharp" at f/1.4 and increasingly beyond reproach by f/1.8-2. (At f/1.4-1.6 it suffers only from halation and some light fall-off in darker areas.) So if extreme sharpness is necessary for you shop with a strategy that will let you return your lens or get it calibrated if not up to your needs. My guess is that my first one was more typical out of the box but it approached the performance of the second after calibration.



(It's also worth noting that the premium-priced 50mm f1.2L is drastically more sharp (and better performing generally) at wide apertures but *less* sharp at f/2.8 through f/8. The f1.4 is a better "walkaround" performer than the f1.2L lens that costs four times as much.)



Regarding light return specifically my own experience in lens-swapping baffled me until I read other reports that the f1.4 exposes a third of a stop brighter than most other Canon lenses. It's brighter in the viewfinder generally and really IS a whole stop "faster" than the f1.8 at maximum apertures (i.e. the same net exposure at half the shutter speed). If you're willing to sacrifice some clarity that extra stop can make a huge difference when you're challenged by moving targets in low light.



(For instance shooting "wide open" for performers in dim venues. Faster shutter for less motion blur. More light for better color. And the edges may be soft at 100% magnification but *relatively* clear compared to the out-of-focus background. That "illusion of clarity" isn't as likely to print very well but resizes very snappily for the web.)



So the f1.8 can certainly produce some stunning images particularly in general daylight photography OR tightly-controlled conditions OR stopped down but is less adaptable to challenging circumstances that the f1.4.



"The Best for Last...":



Now with both these lenses you get the advantage of marvelously wide aperture which can be used for a tight focal plane that lets the background (or foreground distractions) fall quickly out of focus. This is of course a cornerstone of creative photography and both lenses give you plenty to explore. (In practice even f/2.8 delivers a pretty shallow depth of field in close-up shots so these wider lenses give you even more room to play.)



However there is such a thing as "blur quality" called "bokeh" based on the number of aperture blades within the lens. The f1.8 has five and the f1.4 has eight. The f1.8 will portray out-of-focus lights more pentagonally the f1.4 more roundly. (In focus those same lights will be eight-pointed stars with the f1.4 ten-pointed with the f1.8 - odd numbers of blades double the number of points.) But most importantly the blur from the f1.8 can be rather "choppy" especially at wide apertures while the f1.4's is consistently more "buttery smooth."



In other words there's more to quality than sharpness - there's also quality where your shot is LESS than sharp. And this is where the f1.4 becomes "a favorite lens" for some people even at over three times the price of its diminuitive counterpart.



Make no mistake the f1.8 would make an excellent "starter" lens. But the f1.4 is an exceptionally *serious* lens. Are you still learning to love photography? Then $80 is a fine price to pay for a lens you might outgrow. Or do you already love photography? Then $300 is a worthy price for a true investment that will reliably pay off. So they're both bargains just buy what's best for you.



(Addendum - Canon also sells a 50mm f2.5 Macro lens around $250. If you NEED macro it's reportedly pretty good and for general purpose as well. But it's a) not even as fast as the f1.8 b) more difficult to manually focus than the f1.4 and c) not as creamy in the bokeh with six aperture blades instead of eight. And Canon's 100mm version is drastically more practical for macro work and better performing generally. But the 50mm Macro does become a contender at a "middle price" if what you really need is one decent lens to do as many different things as possible though none of them as well.)More detail ...

Incredible Bargain - Sharp Lens with VR for $250!

This lens is sharp even at wide apertures the VR (image stabilization) works great autofocus speed is more than acceptable and it it is very light and compact. The fact that it costs $250 and has effective VR is pretty amazing - no other company offers a lens with this feature for anywhere near this price.



As for image quality search the various internet photo sites such as dpreview and nikonians for sample photos taken with this lens by real users. The results are impressive! My copy produces similar results. The previous reviewer must have a bad sample.



Of course the lens is slow (like almost all consumer zoom lenses) in that its widest aperture is smaller than a professional zoom or prime lens so it's not a good choice for action photography in lower light conditions (like indoor sports without flash or outside sports at dusk). But a fast telephoto zoom will cost at least three times as much and weigh a ton.

I give the lens 5 stars based on a combination of image quality value and compactness/lightness.More detail ...

One of the best lens for portrait and low light photography.

I don't even know where to start. This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. And for its price (which seems to climb recently) it is worth more than 5 stars rating. I initially get this lens for low light action and sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.4) but I also found out that this lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.



As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens):



First being a prime lens you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time they don't think I'm weird but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.



Secondly the focal range of 50mm which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on many DSLRs which is not full frame (unless you have a full frame Nikon DSLR like the D700 or D3 then 50mm is 50mm) this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.



Third in some situation the autofocus might not able to focus (which is common for many other lens too). It is hard for the autofocus to lock when aiming at a wall that is one color (usually black or white) or on a clear sky (day or night). This kind of makes sense to me actually. IN these situations the AF assist light doesn't help either so you can opt for manual focus or set the focus to infinity when you can't find focus lock on scenic/landscape or sky photography. So far I don't have many problems with the autofocus.



Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2.2 or f/2.5. I actually use f/1.8 most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally I'd rather use f/1.8 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2.8 or more.



If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction) here's my take: In overall VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available) and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR but if one can only get for one or the other then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.



If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.



Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF lens:



Pros:

1. Very fast (f/1.8)

2. Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2.2 f/2.5 or more.)

3. Great for sport/action photography

4. Great for indoor and low light situation

5. Great for portrait

6. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens

7. Fast autofocus

8. Good for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However if this is your main objective then you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 version or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)

9. 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700) then this #9 pros is not applicable.

10. Inexpensive



Cons:

1. Being prime lens you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose

2. Autofocus issue on some situations (read detail above)

3. Plasticy build

4. Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable

5. 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on non full frame DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens. I actually like it). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700) then this #5 cons is not applicable.

6. Autofocus does not work with D40 D40x D60 and D5000. The newer 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens or 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens will autofocus with those cameras.



Bottom line: This lens is so versatile (and inexpensive) that I think everyone should own in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

After knowing its limitation I would predict that 99% of you that decides to buy this lens will find this lens very useful. And if you decide that you don't like it (which I think not more than 1%) I'm sure there will be a lot of people who wouldn't mind buying it from you (with some discount of course).



Again I would recommend everyone to get this lens. In some ways I can say that this lens makes me a better photographer.



Happy Photographing!



Sidarta TanuMore detail ...