Analyzing lens choices for conventions and tournaments

I’m flying to Japan today, so everything you read after this has been long since scheduled! Before I left had a look at some different lenses. Two I had my eye on were $100-250 cheaper there than even online, so I had to see if I actually wanted them!

One of them is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II. The Mark I version has been consistently said to be one of the best lenses of the m4/3 line-up, so I’ve fought with buying it for a while. The Mark II version isn’t much different, but has new colours. 😛

The primary use of a new lens would be walking around conventions and tournaments. I have a macro lens that I like (although it needs cleaning), but it’s so slow to focus that it’s time consuming walking around. I ended up settling on the less prestigious Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens. It’s easy to carry, has a reasonable minimum focus length and reasonable speed.

I also have a lens that I used to love, but which I’m falling out of love with. The Leica 25mm f/1.4 has great qualities, but it’s not wide or telephoto, it’s minimum distance is difficult to work with, and it’s noticeably larger than the 14mm.

So I pulled out my camera, a tripod and a Dreadball rat to take some photos! I also took photos with my phone, of the setup so we could get a sense of how far away tournament armies can be for focusing. I set the camera as close as possible to the model, so these are the minimum focus distances.

Olympus 35mm f/3.5 Macro

This one is fun. I think this one could have gone closer, but there’s not usually any reason to in my photography.

This photo also had a 25 second exposure time at f/22 – be sure to use a tripod! (although I also hadn’t set up my studio lights, which usually help out a lot).

Leica Summilux 25mm f/1.4

The stated minimum focus distance of this lens is 12″, which is not nearly close enough. So even though the lens has pretty good telephoto compared to the 14mm (in a moment), and it’s excellent for taking photos indoors, it’s not good for these purposes.

At home I set my camera to f/22 for a few reasons – I don’t need to blur the background, lenses tend to have better image quality well above their minimum aperture, and when I take photos of armies or crews I need some extra depth of field to get it all in.

But one interesting thing is that because it increases the depth of field, I can focus about 5″ behind the rat and still have the model in focus. Not a thing that I can do at conventions, because it also means that I need to bring the shutter speed way down to compensate. Still neat. 🙂

I probably needed to pull the camera back another inch.

Here’s a photo of the camera LCD – it was that blurry when I took the photo above.

Lumix 14mm f/2.5

This is the one I use these days around conventions. I did the trick above for this first photo – again, not possible while walking around.

And finally, here’s a photo that might actually be taken.  It’s at the minimum distance, so I can set the aperture appropriately for indoor settings, and the shutter speed for hand-held shots, and this is the kind of photo I’ll get.

It’s a lot “closer” than in the 25mm lens, which is good for individual models. And because it’s a wide 14mm, I can back up and fit an army into the frame.

So what now?

So now that I’ve taken all of these photos, the question goes back to – is the 20mm a good buy?

The 20mm would bring that last photo closer, which would allow more detailed photos of individual models. But it would also make it harder to take photos of entire armies. I feel like some of my photos of individual models aren’t great, and that the details get lost in the background.

The f/1.7 would give more speed for taking indoor photos, which is just a win. Also it would allow for better bokeh, bringing the focal point forward more.

Apparently the auto-focus on the 20mm is a little slow and it costs $300. But I could still carry the 14mm around if the 20mm doesn’t work for armies, since the 14mm is pretty small.