Are the constant aperture Panasonic lenses worth it (and are you wating for Olympus?)

Started Apr 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Chatokun
Regular MemberPosts: 447Gear list
Like?
Re: Are the constant aperture Panasonic lenses worth it (and are you wating for Olympus?)
In reply to bowportes, Apr 3, 2013

bowportes wrote:

Chatokun wrote:

It seems the zooms are ideal if you use little to no primes. I've heard some recommend still keeping the 45mm 1.8 and/or the 25mm 1.4, then only use the 12-35 and 35-100 for all other focal lengths. Seems like a good plan if that's what you like, and I believe it's generally cheaper than getting all the primes in those ranges too.

Let's do a quick comparison(all prices approximate via Amazon in USD, new):

12-35mm - Currently as low as $985 new. Let's just say ~$1000.
12-35mm + 25mm = ~$1500~1600

Now Prime version:
12mm: $800
14mm: $200~300
17mm: $500
25mm: $500
total: ~$2000, plus or minus a hundred or so if you choose 20mm instead or go for brand new vs used. Also Sigmas change the game.

35-100mm - $1300 lowest(same company) and ~$1400 Average.
35-100mm + 45mm ~$1800

Primes:
45mm: $400
75mm: $900

Or:
PanLeica 45mm: ~$500-700
75mm $900

I left the 60mm out as it's Macro specific, and the 35-100mm covers that. I don't think anyone who has the 75 would buy the 60 only for the focal length, but I could be wrong. Another issue here is that the FL range of 35-100 covers more than the primes we have available in that range, so it's a less fair comparison.

Odd that you left the 60mm out, since it's no more "macro specific" than the panLeica 45, which you include. Given the choice between the 60mm focal length and the 75mm one, I'd pick the former any time. So I guess you are wrong there.  Interesting exercise in comparative costs.

So, as you see, the Zoom ranges can be cheaper, but the primes offer faster speeds and generally better quality, though the zooms are fast and good quality too. However, for the zooms to be cheaper, you need to pretty much forgo Primes. Having both is good for convenience and flexibility, but definitely costly.

Ah, it was something I forgot to mention when I had to rush out. I personally chose the 45mm for both portraits and Macro, since 45mm is a popular range for that. In my mind, I've seen people mention the 60mm as a good spot between 45 and 75 for them, but they usually mention they like that in tandem with it being a macro lens.

However, I probably should have realized some people would like that FL range, since 135 was a popular film lens, and 60 is pretty close to that. Plus, you never know. 17, 19, 20, and 25 are all liked and hated ranges for different people. Some people complain that 20 and 19 are weird ranges, while others claim it's a nice "in between" of 17 and 25. So... me not thinking I guess

idiotekniQues wrote:

Let's do a quick comparison(all prices approximate via Amazon in USD, new):

12-35mm - Currently as low as $985 new. Let's just say ~$1000.

I wouldn't count that price. that is for lenses shipped from Hong Kong to the USA which, to be fair, I don't think includes warranty. the 12-35mm is really more like $1100 US from an authorized US dealer.

I still think it's worth it, because it is the only lens that can do what it does. Also still think it is a bit overpriced, but not enough to warrant not getting it if you are seriously considering it.

-- hide signature --

www.pixelsquish.com

Hmm, true. I did adjust for that in the combined price, but I should have left 1100 as the average.

 Chatokun's gear list:Chatokun's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
YESNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow