[Leica] M Lenses on GF-1

[drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)]

Vince,

Where did you see the Lumix 7-14 for $900? Seems like most places I
looked had it listed at $1,099.

Dave R

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+drodgers=casefarms.com at leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+drodgers=casefarms.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Vince Passaro
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:29 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] M Lenses on GF-1

David and Henning:

The Panasonic 14-45 of which you speak is about to be history and I am
irritated by the fact. They are "simplifying" the lens for the G2
introduction and offering a larger though also more limited 14-42.  I am
convinced it will be inferior. How could it not be?

Meanwhile I can't wait to go read more about this "less expensive" Oly
9-18mm to which Henning referred... I knew only of the Panasonic 7-14mm
which is supposed to be great but costs like $900. Of course $750 isn't
going to do it for me either.

I have heard, read, and seen photos indicating that the 45-200 is very
good
as well. Henning says he uses his so he can testify.

I've been singing and howling and crying out about this 14-45 lens for a
while because it's -- as you say Henning -- the best normal range zoom
I've
ever used. For the price, shockingly good.  I find the color a little --
just a little -- oversaturated or too rich -- not in an emphatic or
vulgar
way but in the way of a pastry or cake made with scads of butter -- but
this
is easy enough to fix in PS should I need to / want to. At 14mm it's
just
outstanding -- whereas a surprisingly good, inexpensive kit lens I can
compare it to first hand, the Nikon 18-55 DX, is only decent at 18mm and
sharpens up noticeably after 24mm or so.

I keep thinking that the 14-45 is slow, which nominally it is, but then
again I always have to remind myself that unlike the MF lenses I enjoy
using
with the G1, the Lumix 14-45 has IS so can be hand held at much longer
shutter speeds -- my guess is it compensates a step-and-a-half at least,
which means it's more like an f2 - f3.5 spread in terms of the light
conditions it can handle than the nominal 3.5-5.6. Any opinions on that?

Vince



On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM, David Rodgers
<drodgers at casefarms.com>wrote:

>
> My initial impressions of using M lenses on a GF-1 are more favorable
> than I anticipated. The camera feels really nice in my hands with
Leica
> lenses attached. It might even feel better in some ways than it does
> with the Panasonic 20/1.7. However, I still really like the 20 and all
> it brings to the table.
>
> The Leica lenses are heavier and make the camera feel more
substantial.
> I thought the Noctilux might overpower the camera body (feel like
> holding only a big lens) but it feels surprisingly well balanced.
>
> The fact that the 50/2.8 Elmar doesn't collapse when attached to the
> adapter makes it a little less compact. That eliminates one of
50/2.8's
> bigger virtues.
>
> My favorite lens on the GF-1 might actually be the 50/1.4 Summilux. It
> feels and handles very nicely on the body. Same for the 35/1.4
Summilux
> ASPH. I feel comfortable holding my left hand under the lens. That's
the
> style I grew up with. It helps me to stabilize the camera. A lot of
> smallish lenses (the 20/1.7 included) are almost too small. The
heavier
> Leica lenses offer a little more ballast, as well as more real estate
> for getting a solid grip. It makes the GF-1 feel even more like a CL.
>
> On the normal to wide end, the 21/2.8 ASPH is too close to the 20/1.7
in
> focal length and it doesn't have AF. For all those reasons I doubt
I'll
> be using it all that much. I know that contradict whats I said about
the
> "feel" aspect of larger lenses, but as I said, there are other things
> that I really like the 20/1.7.
>
> The 28 Elmarit (3rd Gen) feels much like the 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 (i.e.
> balances and handles well). However, the 28/3.5 VC Color Skopar could
> turn out to be my favorite in that focal length. The 28/3.5 is my only
> chrome lens. I like how it looks on the GF-1 body. Plus it's compact
and
> easy to focus quickly.
>
> All the Leica lenses are relatively easy to focus. That was once
concern
> I had before I tried using them. I've said it before, but I really
like
> the EVF. It's convenient to zoom in for critical focus by merely
pushing
> the thumbwheel. It's nice for framing. The "zoom to focus" worked
well,
> particularly when using the Noctilux. People have expressed concerns
> about the GF-1 EVF but I'm a big fan of it.
>
> My one big complaint about the GF-1 and Leica lenses is the fact that
> the small sensor doubles the effective focal length of every lens. I
> don't mind that I have a 100mm f1 and 100mm 1.4 lens. And the 35/1.4
> ASPH is a nice 70/1.4 lens. They all make for nice medium tele's. I
can
> see how the in-body IS of the Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras might
be
> advantageous with those. .
>
> I feel limited on the wide end. I have an 18 VC, but like the 21
Elmarit
> it's close to the 20/1.7. I may get a 12mm VC, or I may wait until
> Panasonic or Oly come out with a super-wide for micro four thirds. I'm
> in more of a normal lens than wide-angle lens phase of late, so I'm
not
> in a hurry.
>
> Finally, I'll say that it's really nice be able to use my Leica M
lenses
> on a digital body. The good news I that it seems more practical to do
so
> than I thought it would be. IOW, I'm breathing a sigh of relief.
>
> Dave R
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information