For those that have used both, need help deciding between the 60mm or the 75mm MFT lenses. Any thoughts?
359061
Both are excellent lenses with great IQ. 60mm is cheaper, weatherproof, macro, lighter, thinner, but works well for landscape and portrait too. 75 is amazing esp if you need F1.8, but honestly the 60mm is comparable. I have both..should sell one, but either is hard to part with. You really can't go wrong with either.
359062
If you need macro functionality, get the 60mm f2.8- it's a great macro. If you don't need it, get the 75mm 1.8- the shallow DOF capability gives a lot of flexibility and it is probably the sharpest lens in the olympus m.zuiko lineup.
316099
Sharp lens, at 120mm its longer than the 1.8 45mm, which works out to 90mm. It is a bit slower, but just as sharp. Yes and no, it gets you close from the edges of a room, head shots are fine, its a cheaper alternative to the oly 75mm.The 25mm 1.8 might be more useful, I have the sigma 60. Do it all would be the pro zoom, but its pricy. The sigma would be great on the omd, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
794543
I would pick the 24mm because since you are dealing with a non-zoom lens the 35mm will be more limiting than you might think. I rented both the 24mm and the 35mm before I made the purchase and I found myself switching back to the 24 frequently to capture the shot I wanted. Also, the distortions one might expect to see with "cheaper" 24mm lenses are virtually non-existent with this lens.
1069243
I own both. This is sharper and faster to focus than the 70-300. With either lens, "faster" is not a consideration. Both lenses are sharpest at f8 and require plenty of bright light. BTW, the lens hood from the 70-300 works on this version for those wondering...
1913663
What are you wanting to know? They are both excellent lenses just depends on what you are wanting to do with them!!
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
1463261
Did you ever get a lens? I'm making the same decision now. If so, what did you buy? Are you happy with your decision? Is there anything else you would add that would help me make a decision. Thanks!
350404
The autofocus is great and at the price for a prime lens you can't beat it. One thing since you are shooting with a DX sensor or cropped sensor this lens will actually be at 75mm, check out this nikon link http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html
141676
Wouldn't we all. If budget is limited, go with previous 60mm micro; it's outstanding. Not a huge saving, but a saving nonetheless.
597331
Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105? Despite the relative ratio differences it seems as though the 24-105 is so much more of lens for not much more money. Any thoughts?
2123153
Although the original Poster has probably long since made her decision, other interested potential buyers may find a visit to the Ken Rockwell forum worthwhile here, since he really spends time reviewing and discussing the pro's and cons of these two lenses. Definitely worth the visit...http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm#comparedDefinitely worth a read!
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
316097
The Oly 45mm 1.8 is a great lens, great for portraits. As far as the 60mm being too long for portraits, I hear a lot of people use the Oly 75mm for portaits as well. In any event, the Sigma 60mm is really a great lens for the money; Sigma's website lists it as a portrait lens (for what it's worth).
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
1163546
I have both lenses and while at first glance you may not notice the difference too much, if you spend some time comparing side by side and zooming in you'll notice the 50mm gives all round better results in crispness, colour and clarity.The 18-55mm is a decent lens for a kit lens and I still make use of it but I do side more with the 50mm when the situation calls for it, like street photography.