m4/3 basic lens question

[Mr_McBride]

I am a new member to this site, posted an intro in the New Member forum already. I just ordered a Lumix G6 with the 14-42mm II lens from adorama for $498. I understand that the 14-42mm is a kit lens. When looking at other lens's for the G6, how can I tell which ones are kit and which are prime, other than price?

 

[The_Traveler]

cheap lenses are kit lenses.

I have a m4/3 and use Panasonic 12-35 (equal to 24-70) cost $1120 new and Panasonic 35-100 (equal to 70-200) cost $1338 new.

 

[jaomul]

Don't get bogged down by kit label. Kit just means it's offered with the camera. A prime Lens though is a single length Lens that does not zoom. Possibly a better question is what lenses are good for what in a certain price range

 

[Mr_McBride]

Ah, good to know.

I was assuming that the more expensive lenses were better, but I've seen lenses in the $200-$300, $500-$800, and above $1k, but I've only heard the common terms 'kit' and 'prime'.....part of the learning process....now I know what a prime lens is.

 

[Ron Evers]

Not all kit lenses are zooms. The Panasonic 14mm f2.5 was a kit lens with some cameras & is considered by many m4/3 users a must have lens.

Another Pany kit is the 14-45 a well regarded zoom - better than the later 14-42.

 

[brunerww]

Hi rodney - welcome to the world of micro 4/3! The G6 is a terrific camera and the 14-42 is a fine lens. The combination has been used to create some great stills: Flickr Search: Panasonic G6 14-42

And video too:

[video=vimeo;73561266]http://vimeo.com/73561266[/video]​

But it is slow and doesn't have a lot of reach. When you can afford it, your next two lenses should probably be an inexpensive, fast prime and a $199 telephoto.

Happy shooting with the new camera!

Bill

 

[Mr_McBride]

...But it is slow and doesn't have a lot of reach. When you can afford it, your next two lenses should probably be an inexpensive, fast prime and a $199 telephoto.

Happy shooting with the new camera!

Bill

Sounds like good advice. I'll take a close look at those two.

Thanks Bill

 

[bif]

McBride,

You'll already have the 14mm wide covered on the "kit" lens, aperture of f3.5 is still less than a stop slower than the 14mm f2.5. You might also look at the Lumix 20mm f1.7 as a better low light optic with plenty of sharpness.

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix G H-H020AK 20mm F/1.7 II ASPH Lens for Panasonic/Olympus Micro Four Thirds Cameras (Black): PANASONIC: Camera & Photo

 

[Mr_McBride]

McBride,

You'll already have the 14mm wide covered on the "kit" lens, aperture of f3.5 is still less than a stop slower than the 14mm f2.5. You might also look at the Lumix 20mm f1.7 as a better low light optic with plenty of sharpness.

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix G H-H020AK 20mm F/1.7 II ASPH Lens for Panasonic/Olympus Micro Four Thirds Cameras (Black): PANASONIC: Camera & Photo

I did purchase the 20mm f1.7 lens. That lens has proved to be fast enough for indoor basketball games in poor light. Longer reach will soon become a limitation so I will need to add a good zoom.

I'm taking lots of pictures and am slowing learning what aperture & shutter speed to use to different situations. My pics aren't tack sharp yet, but I am slowly improving.

 

[Ron Evers]

McBride,



I did purchase the 20mm f1.7 lens. That lens has proved to be fast enough for indoor basketball games in poor light. Longer reach will soon become a limitation so I will need to add a good zoom.

I'm taking lots of pictures and am slowing learning what aperture & shutter speed to use to different situations. My pics aren't tack sharp yet, but I am slowly improving.

You might consider the Sigma 60mm f2.8, inexpensive ($220), reasonably fast, fast focus & tack sharp.

 

[Mr_McBride]

McBride,



I did purchase the 20mm f1.7 lens. That lens has proved to be fast enough for indoor basketball games in poor light. Longer reach will soon become a limitation so I will need to add a good zoom.

I'm taking lots of pictures and am slowing learning what aperture & shutter speed to use to different situations. My pics aren't tack sharp yet, but I am slowly improving.

You might consider the Sigma 60mm f2.8, inexpensive ($220), reasonably fast, fast focus & tack sharp.

Thanks, I'll take a close look at that one.

 

[petrochemist]

Ah, good to know.

I was assuming that the more expensive lenses were better, but I've seen lenses in the $200-$300, $500-$800, and above $1k, but I've only heard the common terms 'kit' and 'prime'.....part of the learning process....now I know what a prime lens is.

As Ron said not all kit lenses are zooms I have a collection of old Pentax 50mm / Zenit 55mm primes which would all have been kit lenses in their day. These lenses have a bit of a cult following in some circles today.

Lenses are (with a few antique exceptions) all either zooms or primes, the zooms having a range of focal lengths whilst the primes have a fixed focal length. Primes are easier to make in highly corrected form, and in the past where definitely better quality than the zooms. Some kit lenses are fairly high quality despite being mass produced to sell with new cameras, and most are quite capable of taking much better shots that many camera users take.

The more expensive enthusiast/professional lenses will offer improvements over the kit lenses which might be wider aperture / faster focusing / better correction of aberrations / tougher build quality / weather proofing... In addition to this theres also the posibilty of niche type lenses such as extreme telephoto, or tilt/shift which most photographers wouldn't have a real use for. (Some of these can cost more than a car).

Many systems now have several kit lenses, a standard zoom & a long zoom are common, with perhaps a prime or a travel zoom being available as options too. The kit lenses are generally a fairly good place to start out with. Not too expensive but good enough to learn the basics of photography (If you take the camera off auto) and to find out what sorts of photography interest you. After a few months/years with the kits you might find that your lenses don't focus close enough for the flower details your after or the aircraft you try to capture are too small... It's when you find the limits of your system that you can really decide whats right for you. (IMO for most photographers it's not the quality of their kit lenses that's responsible for disappointing images.)

 

[vimwiz]

A kit lens can be either a zoom or a prime (fixed). While now most camera provide a zoom in the kit, older SLRs generally shipped with a 50mm prime in the kit.
A kit lens isnt nececerially a bad lens, its just one of the lower-end models, which showcases new features, and offers enough flexibility to get started, and is provided with the body at a subsidised price.