File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, I have an Olympus E-Volt 510. I love it, I just need to find a good lens for it. Right now, I have the kit lens, a 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6. It was alright, albeit a bit slow... Taking pictures in any kind of low light was a bit brutal, and I've been wanting a bit more zoom than the 14-42 offers.

tl;dr what's a good lens for my 510, my budget is 500 or so, a fast lens is a priority over a crazy optical zoom lens.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Floating point exception (core dumped)
>> Anonymous
Try a 50 mm prime? fast, sharp pictures.
>> Anonymous
if you want to do landscapes and or portraits id suggest the sigma 30mm f1.4 or the sigma 24mm f1.8 or the panasonic? 25mm f1.4? im not all that sure about the last ones correctness lol. you have to chech the four thirds website or something for that one.

i just got the 24mm f1.8 and im LOVE it. the ability to shoot at 1/4000th of a second at iso100 and f1.8 and still get overexposed shots is crazy lol.

>>226977my thread with some samples. net necessarily good pictures but examples none the less.

the major downfall ive seen so far is it is kinda big and is weighs like 2x as much as the body itself, but the biggest one is its filter size. its gigantic and filters for it are expensive
>> Anonymous
>>227597

>shoot at 1/4000th of a second at iso100 and f1.8 and still get overexposed shots

where are you shooting? The surface of the sun? Stop down.
>> Anonymous
Seconding the Sigma 30mm/1.4 for low light. The Leica/Panasonic 25/1.4 is optically nicer, but it's far out of your price range. You should also consider the 14-54/2.8-3.5; it's (obviously) faster than the kit lens, and it's also very sharp. The bokeh is rather noisy compared to the kit lens, though. If you go for the latter lens, have a look at the second hand market, as many people are selling it off in favor of the 12-60.

As for the 50mm that>>227561suggests; while it is crazy sharp, and built well, it's simply too telecentric to be of much use outside of portrait and macro.
>> Anonymous
>>227600
tx, at like 10-12 ish? i know

also whoops with the panasonic 25mm suggestion i forgot it was 800 lol i thought it was around 400 or so, if that was the case id have it instead!
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>227597
24mm for portraits, huh? Avedon is turning in his grave ...
>> Anonymous
>>227649
people dont use 50 mm for portraits?
you may be forgetting the 2x crop factor my delicious friend.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>227664
Holy shit, 2x crop sensor. Bricks were shat. 50 is still not the best, though.
>> Anonymous
>>227666
Yeah, cause the only lens that you can take good portraits with is an 85mm 1.2

Fuck off. If the subject is happy with the results, you can take a portrait with a 15mm rectilinear, or a tilt-shift, it doesn't matter. I shoot people with a 35/2, 50/1.8 and 105/2.8 (on FF and crop) and they all come out well.
>> Anonymous
>>227666
i like it. i like the distortion i get when your subject gets real close, and i like being able to work close to what im shooting.

its preference unless you REAAAAAAALlY like the different perspective you get from a longer lens, though ive never noticed much of a difference.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>227670
True, but you're still getting distortion, even at 100mm on 35mm, so unless you like to accent your model's face, it's wise to use a longer lens.
>> Anonymous
>>227675
100mm on 135 isn't long?
>> Anonymous
DC is probably like the fag I saw one day shooting a fashion model with a 300mm lens. He was about 100 feet away and communicated with her via walkie-talkie.

I guess he really, really wanted the image to be flat...
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>227689
For portraits, 135mm is my favorite, but the face flattens out all the way towards 300mm.
>> Anonymous
If you don't mind me asking, why did you buy an Olympus SLR over other brands? And why the 510 specifically?
>> Anonymous
>>227728
not op but i have a 510
i got it because it was cheap, my uncle said they had good glass, and because i could get two GOOD kit lenses for the price of an xti and ONE SHITTY kit lens.

entry leven dslrs are all basically the same
>> Anonymous
>>227728
Not OP either, but build quality and ergonomics, mostly. Before I bought the 510, I tried the Rebel XTi and the D40(x?), but I couldn't come to terms with grip on the former, and the latter just felt really... plasticly. The IS, spot meter, and mirror lock up combined with very decent kit lenses just made the decision easier. If the store where I bought my camera in had any pentax or sony cameras, things might have been different, but compared to canon and nikon, I find olympus' entry level cameras far better price to performance wise.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227705
Flatness is not necessarily a problem. Bu having to be over 9000 feet from the one you're shooting kinda sucks.

Pic related, it's 1000mm equivalent focal length

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern654Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:07:29 21:48:16Exposure Time1/1600 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227999
In b4 shitstorm.
>> Anonymous
For those of you who have a 510, what do you think about the 2x crop factor? Do you ever worry that the four-thirds sensor size will limit your photography, especially in regards to wide-angle?
>> Anonymous
>>228654
While I don't own a Four-Thirds SLR, I don't think it would pose a problem for most people:

1) There are four rectilinear lenses in the system with ultrawide lengths (7, 10, 11, and 12 as their starting points), and nine other ones with wide as their starting point (mostly 14, some 18).

Unfortunately, no primes except a fisheye. You could adapt an 135 format ultrawide (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) to the mount and manually and scale focus.

2) 28 was the widest lens that existed, AFAIK, for some time. Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. still managed pretty well, don't you think? I don't know about Capa, but the widest lens Cartier-Bresson had was a 35mm, which he barely touched.
>> Anonymous
>>228657

Saying that someone has "managed well without" a thing they neither needed nor could have acquired, isn't necessary to point out.
>> Anonymous
>>228654
no but ive never needed an ultrawide lens. 14mm is pretty damn wide i would say.
ive found the crop factor to be a good thing.
its easier to do the math than a 1.6 and it makes for potentially smaller telephoto lenses than other systems.

its really not all that different its not like the camera is backwards or anything /p/ just doesnt like anything new
>> Anonymous
>>228686

14mm comes out to 28mm, which is "wide-ish", not really wide.

Also, compare other brand's kit lenses, which are typically in the 18-whatever range. 18mm at 1.5 factor = 27mm, so there's really no difference.

Just sayin'.
>> Anonymous
>>228654
>limit your photography, especially in regards to wide-angle
Two things 4/3 lacks in wide-angle department compared to other non-full-frame systems are a) consumer grade 15-16mm equivalent rectilinear lens like Canon 10-22 and b) a circular fisheye. Not many people really need those.
I'm pretty content with my 11-22mm. Maybe one or two less millimeters at the wide end wouldn't hurt, but on the other hand, it's super sharp across the entire frame even at f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>228717
i was referring more to the 7 when i said ultrawide. i realized right after that my 48mm equiv lens is considered a normal not a wide....