Paul
I really enjoyed using the 20mm Panny when I had it. The focal length was so
useful that I tended to have that on my GF1 rather than the zoom. The primary
reason for doing so was to save space, but the versatility of the focal length
and the quality of the lens overrode any other considerations. The GF1/20mm
combination was most useful for group shots, with excellent results.
I know that it makes no difference to your use of the 20/1.7, but it has no
integral IS.
Chris
On 30 Dec 2012, at 22:23, Paul Braun <pbraun42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's a combination of speed and smallerness. 40mm EFL should be
> comfortable. The extra $150.... not willing to go there at the moment.
> $350 for the Panny 20/1.7 is right where we're willing to go. I did get
> the 12-50, but I can definitely see carrying the wee lit'l beastie
> around more with the smaller lens as an option.
>>> ... I am correct in my assumption that stacking the OM-4/3 adapter on top
>>> of the 4/3-MFT adapter is not a good thing?
>> No, you are not correct. It should work fine, unless the OM-4/3 touches the
>> contacts in the
>> 4/3-MFT. I had that problem with an LTM-EF adapter on the Canons. A piece of
>> tape on the back resolved it.
>>
>>
> I'll give it a shot. I've got the Olympus OM-FT and the Panny FT-MFT on
> the way, so we'll see when it gets here.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|