06-10-2012, 01:58 AM
Hi Wim,
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1339256662' post='18805']
Personally, I went for the 20 mm. It is more compact, and a lot cheaper, and besides that, I like the 40 mm FF equivalent, ever since I got my first Pentax MX with 40 F/2.8 (in the days it wasn't called a pancake lens yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I think you can always decide later whether you want half a stop faster and a little longer, or something that is 1.5 stops faster, like the F/0.95 editions of the 25 mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.[/quote]
Although originally I felt somewhat uncomfortable about the 40mm equiv FL (neither 50mm nor 35mm), now I don't think this is a matter. A little wider than 50mm and a little narrower than 35mm may be a plus indeed. No doubt the 20/1.7 is a lovely and high-quality lens. However, oddly in my region I found that the normal price of the 20/1.7 is very close to that of the 25/1.4, which means that it is not very cheap (although still cheaper than the 25/1.4). And yes, the 25mm f1.4 vs f0.95 is another choice (in future).
I have heard that the AF of the 20/1.7 is slow and noisy, but I guess this is just relative.
Yes, I know this can be done with the menu. I just wonder if it can also be done in post processing, like the white balance. Any way, it is not a big deal. I can always choose to shoot with 4:3 (advatage of maximum resolution) and then crop to 3:2 in post processing if I want it to be 3:2.
On the other hand, I think 4:3 is not that bad. Medium format and large format cameras have aspect ratios other than 3:2 (I just found that the Pentax 645D has also a 4:3 native aspect ratio).
With best regards,
Frank
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1339256662' post='18805']
Personally, I went for the 20 mm. It is more compact, and a lot cheaper, and besides that, I like the 40 mm FF equivalent, ever since I got my first Pentax MX with 40 F/2.8 (in the days it wasn't called a pancake lens yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I think you can always decide later whether you want half a stop faster and a little longer, or something that is 1.5 stops faster, like the F/0.95 editions of the 25 mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.[/quote]Although originally I felt somewhat uncomfortable about the 40mm equiv FL (neither 50mm nor 35mm), now I don't think this is a matter. A little wider than 50mm and a little narrower than 35mm may be a plus indeed. No doubt the 20/1.7 is a lovely and high-quality lens. However, oddly in my region I found that the normal price of the 20/1.7 is very close to that of the 25/1.4, which means that it is not very cheap (although still cheaper than the 25/1.4). And yes, the 25mm f1.4 vs f0.95 is another choice (in future).
I have heard that the AF of the 20/1.7 is slow and noisy, but I guess this is just relative.
Quote:With the GF2 you can switch the image aspect ratio in the menu, and it does deliver RAWs in that format too. I would expect that to be possible with the GF1 as well. Best to check the manual I guess, or scroll through the myriad of menu options <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Yes, I know this can be done with the menu. I just wonder if it can also be done in post processing, like the white balance. Any way, it is not a big deal. I can always choose to shoot with 4:3 (advatage of maximum resolution) and then crop to 3:2 in post processing if I want it to be 3:2.
On the other hand, I think 4:3 is not that bad. Medium format and large format cameras have aspect ratios other than 3:2 (I just found that the Pentax 645D has also a 4:3 native aspect ratio).
With best regards,
Frank