Starting from Scratch - Recommend a Lense Set?

[doug_fir89]

Hi all,

I arrived here after wanting something lightweight, compact and durable to take with me on multi-day hiking trips. Naturally, I found M43 and Olympus cameras appealing. I don't have my body purchased yet, but am looking at either an E-M5 III or E-M1 II, from what I understand the relevant differences for me are that the E-M5 is a bit lighter and smaller which is nice, but the E-M1 II has larger battery capacity and more robust frame. I should note I really admire the effort Olympus has put into IBIS and 'shooting without a tripod' - that's very appealing to me as tripods are big, heavy and time consuming when on the trail.

Anyway, I'm mostly wanting to take landscapes (including at night, it'd be great to capture the ol' Milky with my tent and mountains below) and wildlife shots. I wouldn't say I have a 'budget' per se, and instead it's a function of what the the lens accomplishes.

For astro, I'm looking at the Pana 12mm / 1.7 for astro, but I've heard it has purple fringing issues with the Olympus bodies (which may or may not be fixed with a Weston 2A UV filter). OTOH, the Olympus 12 / 2 is used successfully and also recommended, it just didn't seem to have the bokeh abilities of the 12 / 1.7, but is also much lighter and smaller. One last option I'm considering in this category is the Olympus 12-40 / 2.8, having a zoom lens would be a lot more versatile so I don't have to carry as much on a hike. I still need to come up with the remainder of my kit, but I'd like to settle on an astro lens first and build out from there (since astro seems inherently challenging with M43, I'd like a good lens to compensate).

If someone could help me come up with a reasonable set of 2-4 lenses, I'd really appreciate it! I'd like to get my system figured out before making any purchases.

 

[Bobby V]

Budget?

If money was no object and my focus was lightweight hiking, I'd strongly consider the Oly 8-25 F/4 and the Pana-Leica 50-200. That would cover everything you want to do with exceptional image quality in a tiny kit.

Others will have to speak to the astro question, I have no experience with it.

--
My Website

 

[buratino]

Hi all,

I arrived here after wanting something lightweight, compact and durable to take with me on multi-day hiking trips. Naturally, I found M43 and Olympus cameras appealing. I don't have my body purchased yet, but am looking at either an E-M5 III or E-M1 II, from what I understand the relevant differences for me are that the E-M5 is a bit lighter and smaller which is nice, but the E-M1 II has larger battery capacity and more robust frame. I should note I really admire the effort Olympus has put into IBIS and 'shooting without a tripod' - that's very appealing to me as tripods are big, heavy and time consuming when on the trail.

Anyway, I'm mostly wanting to take landscapes (including at night, it'd be great to capture the ol' Milky with my tent and mountains below) and wildlife shots. I wouldn't say I have a 'budget' per se, and instead it's a function of what the the lens accomplishes.

For astro, I'm looking at the Pana 12mm / 1.7 for astro, but I've heard it has purple fringing issues with the Olympus bodies (which may or may not be fixed with a Weston 2A UV filter). OTOH, the Olympus 12 / 2 is used successfully and also recommended, it just didn't seem to have the bokeh abilities of the 12 / 1.7, but is also much lighter and smaller. One last option I'm considering in this category is the Olympus 12-40 / 2.8, having a zoom lens would be a lot more versatile so I don't have to carry as much on a hike. I still need to come up with the remainder of my kit, but I'd like to settle on an astro lens first and build out from there (since astro seems inherently challenging with M43, I'd like a good lens to compensate).

If someone could help me come up with a reasonable set of 2-4 lenses, I'd really appreciate it! I'd like to get my system figured out before making any purchases.

12-32 and Laowa 7.5 or 9-10mm is what I would take with me on a multi-day and multi-portage canoe trip - paired with something like GX800/850. My 12-32 and 12-40 are the most used lenses.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

Hi all,

I arrived here after wanting something lightweight, compact and durable to take with me on multi-day hiking trips. Naturally, I found M43 and Olympus cameras appealing. I don't have my body purchased yet, but am looking at either an E-M5 III or E-M1 II, from what I understand the relevant differences for me are that the E-M5 is a bit lighter and smaller which is nice, but the E-M1 II has larger battery capacity and more robust frame. I should note I really admire the effort Olympus has put into IBIS and 'shooting without a tripod' - that's very appealing to me as tripods are big, heavy and time consuming when on the trail.

Most all of my photography is hiking based with the exception of birding. I've had m4/3 since 2014 and my original set was the EM-1 I, the 12-40 lens, and the Panasonic F2.8 35-100. I've had the EM-1 II for about two years and it has replaced the EM-1 I on hikes with good photographic opportunity. The sensor on the EM-1 II and other later models is significantly better than that on the original EM-1 I especially with regard to DR and highlight recovery/maintenance. I've not owned an EM-5 model but can say the EM-1 II and EM-1X are both great bodies. The EM-1 II is not too large or heavy for hiking and backpacking. By 2015 I added the 8mm FE and 60 macro to my hiking kit; though I seldom would carry all of those lenses.

The EM-1 III and EM-1X share the same sensor with the EM-1 II (and later EM-5 models). Stabilization is yet greater on the newest bodies but the EM-1 II is fine for me on handheld images up to about 1/2 second. But I would tend to hold the SS to 1/10 to 1/4 second by raising the ISO to 800 or 1600.

I recently added the 12-45 (this fall) and the 50-200 Panasonic lens.

None of my lenses are obsolete to me. I now would view my kits in this way:

1) EM-1 I and 12-40 - my lightest kit.

2) EM-1 II and 12-45 and maybe 35-100 on certain mountain hikes depending on quality of scenery. The 12-45 is about as good as the 12-40 but I believe the 12-40 is better beyond F6.3.

3) Add the 60 macro when appropriate. For high magnification a tripod is necessary and I would Focus Stack. But no tripod necessary for mountain or desert flowers. I also use the 60 macro for bees without a tripod.

4) EM-1 II and 12-45, 35-100, and 8mm FE for some backpacks. The 8mm FE is very good for high open mountain ridges. No tripod.

5) EM-1 II and 12-45, 50-200, and maybe 8mm FE for backpacks where I expect interesting wildlife. No tripod.

6) EM-1 II and 12-40 and 35-100 or 50-200 and 8mm FE for night photography of MW or Northern Lights. This requires a tripod and long exposures of 20-30 seconds for MW; significantly shorter SS for good Northern Lights.

7) EM-1X for macro winter hikes with 12-40 or 12-45 and 60 macro. Add a tripod for the macro. On these I typically shoot high quality images of mosses.

8) For bees and Butterflies maybe the EM-1X 12-45, 60 macro, and 300 F4 - no tripod. Generally hikes less than ten miles with the heavier gear.

(9) For birding EM-1X and 300F4 plus TC-14. No tripod. Maybe add the 12-40 depending on scenery.

Anyway, I'm mostly wanting to take landscapes (including at night, it'd be great to capture the ol' Milky with my tent and mountains below) and wildlife shots. I wouldn't say I have a 'budget' per se, and instead it's a function of what the the lens accomplishes.

The 8mm FE at F1.8 and the 12-40 will work for MW. The 8mm FE is excellent for this. Without the desire to shoot the MW, the new 8-25 could replace the 8mm FE on hikes.

For astro, I'm looking at the Pana 12mm / 1.7 for astro, but I've heard it has purple fringing issues with the Olympus bodies (which may or may not be fixed with a Weston 2A UV filter). OTOH, the Olympus 12 / 2 is used successfully and also recommended, it just didn't seem to have the bokeh abilities of the 12 / 1.7, but is also much lighter and smaller. One last option I'm considering in this category is the Olympus 12-40 / 2.8, having a zoom lens would be a lot more versatile so I don't have to carry as much on a hike. I still need to come up with the remainder of my kit, but I'd like to settle on an astro lens first and build out from there (since astro seems inherently challenging with M43, I'd like a good lens to compensate).

If someone could help me come up with a reasonable set of 2-4 lenses, I'd really appreciate it! I'd like to get my system figured out before making any purchases.

See above on possible kits.

 

[Harold66]

Hello

First of all , why not look at panasonic instead of just Olympus ?
i think based on your interests , you might want to think on what body would work best with the lenses which would work best for your interest

For instance, the Panasonic G9 with the PL 50-200mm zoom is a winning combination for wildlife
Harold

 

[Jeff Wahaus]

Hi all,

I arrived here after wanting something lightweight, compact and durable to take with me on multi-day hiking trips. Naturally, I found M43 and Olympus cameras appealing. I don't have my body purchased yet, but am looking at either an E-M5 III or E-M1 II, from what I understand the relevant differences for me are that the E-M5 is a bit lighter and smaller which is nice, but the E-M1 II has larger battery capacity and more robust frame. I should note I really admire the effort Olympus has put into IBIS and 'shooting without a tripod' - that's very appealing to me as tripods are big, heavy and time consuming when on the trail.

Anyway, I'm mostly wanting to take landscapes (including at night, it'd be great to capture the ol' Milky with my tent and mountains below) and wildlife shots. I wouldn't say I have a 'budget' per se, and instead it's a function of what the the lens accomplishes.

For astro, I'm looking at the Pana 12mm / 1.7 for astro, but I've heard it has purple fringing issues with the Olympus bodies (which may or may not be fixed with a Weston 2A UV filter). OTOH, the Olympus 12 / 2 is used successfully and also recommended, it just didn't seem to have the bokeh abilities of the 12 / 1.7, but is also much lighter and smaller. One last option I'm considering in this category is the Olympus 12-40 / 2.8, having a zoom lens would be a lot more versatile so I don't have to carry as much on a hike. I still need to come up with the remainder of my kit, but I'd like to settle on an astro lens first and build out from there (since astro seems inherently challenging with M43, I'd like a good lens to compensate).

If someone could help me come up with a reasonable set of 2-4 lenses, I'd really appreciate it! I'd like to get my system figured out before making any purchases.

I would start with the Olympus 12-100mm f/4. It is arguably the best general purpose lens in the m43 system. Most people that have this lens keep it on their camera 90% of the time. It is really that good.

For low light you'll probably want to look at primes. The f/1.2 versions if you have the funds, otherwise the f/1.7-1.8 lenses.

 

[doug_fir89]

Budget?

If money was no object and my focus was lightweight hiking, I'd strongly consider the Oly 8-25 F/4 and the Pana-Leica 50-200. That would cover everything you want to do with exceptional image quality in a tiny kit.

Others will have to speak to the astro question, I have no experience with it.

I'm reluctant to post a budget, because it's really a function of how well a given system accomplishes my goals. I'd rather spend $2000 on a system that does the job than a $1000 system that's full of compromises. That, and I'm willing to piece this together slowly, and get good deals on used stuff.

I also wanted to mention, that because I'd like to maximize performance without a tripod, I'm really interested in the E-M1 III due to it's HHHR and Starry AF. Another plus is it's USB charging, so I can cut down on weight/volume from extra batteries. But at an extra $4-500, I'm not sure those features are worth it, especially with a new flagship on the way.

I appreciate the recommendations, I must've read every thread in existence by now but new products and opinions are always forming. Checking out those lenses now, thanks!

 

[doug_fir89]

12-32 and Laowa 7.5 or 9-10mm is what I would take with me on a multi-day and multi-portage canoe trip - paired with something like GX800/850. My 12-32 and 12-40 are the most used lenses.

Wow! The 12-32 is super cheap and small. I liked a lot of photos I saw out of the Laowa 7.5 as well, and it's also very small and reasonably priced. Would these pair well with an Olympus body? I have to say, I really like the weatherproof aspect of the Olympus 12-40 pro.

 

[Harold66]

12-32 and Laowa 7.5 or 9-10mm is what I would take with me on a multi-day and multi-portage canoe trip - paired with something like GX800/850. My 12-32 and 12-40 are the most used lenses.

Wow! The 12-32 is super cheap and small.

yes but it is not that bright and the focal range combined with the limited max aperture once you zoom it a liitle bit makes it not a great choice for your fields of interest

with all due respect, i think you are likely to get so many different recommendations that it won’t be easier to choose

i think you should ask to get the 1 or 2 best references for the three areas of interest you mentioned ( astro, landscape and wildlife) and based on the lenses you want to get , choose the best body for this set of lenses

Harold

 

[doug_fir89]

The EM-1 III and EM-1X share the same sensor with the EM-1 II (and later EM-5 models). Stabilization is yet greater on the newest bodies but the EM-1 II is fine for me on handheld images up to about 1/2 second. But I would tend to hold the SS to 1/10 to 1/4 second by raising the ISO to 800 or 1600.

If you didn't own any bodies, would you go for the E-M1 III? As a noob buying my first real system, optimizing for hand-held shooting quality seems well worth it, but I can't speak form experience here. Given your kit list though, it seems you already have a lot success using the E-M1 II with no tripod.

1) EM-1 I and 12-40 - my lightest kit..

2) EM-1 II and 12-45 and maybe 35-100 on certain mountain hikes depending on quality of scenery. The 12-45 is about as good as the 12-40 but I believe the 12-40 is better beyond F6.3.

3) Add the 60 macro when appropriate. For high magnification a tripod is necessary and I would Focus Stack. But no tripod necessary for mountain or desert flowers. I also use the 60 macro for bees without a tripod.

4) EM-1 II and 12-45, 35-100, and 8mm FE for some backpacks. The 8mm FE is very good for high open mountain ridges. No tripod.

5) EM-1 II and 12-45, 50-200, and maybe 8mm FE for backpacks where I expect interesting wildlife. No tripod.

6) EM-1 II and 12-40 and 35-100 or 50-200 and 8mm FE for night photography of MW or Northern Lights. This requires a tripod and long exposures of 20-30 seconds for MW; significantly shorter SS for good Northern Lights.

7) EM-1X for macro winter hikes with 12-40 or 12-45 and 60 macro. Add a tripod for the macro.

8) For bees and Butterflies maybe the EM-1X 12-45, 60 macro, and 300 F4 - no tripod. Generally hikes less than ten miles with the heavier gear.

(9) For birding EM-1X and 300F4 plus TC-14. No tripod. Maybe add the 12-40 depending on scenery.
The 8mm FE at F1.8 and the 12-40 will work for MW. The 8mm FE is excellent for this. Without the desire to shoot the MW, the new 8-25 could replace the 8mm FE on hikes.

I noticed you don't really pack your 12-40 much, comparatively? I'm not really a fan of fish eye at the moment, so I'm leaning toward the 12-40mm out of those, and it seems a fair bit more versatile. Thanks for your detailed input!

 

[ahaslett]

So many options, depending on what your priorities are.

I’d start by looking at the Laowa 7.5 & 10mm lenses for Astro and WA landscape. For a normal zoom, you could choose between 12-100, 12-45 & 12-40 Pro.

I’m on my second copy of the 12-32 and wouldn’t be without one, but it’s not the light lens I’d choose for landscape. That would be the 12-45 Pro.

Wildlife can mean so many things, but light isn’t one of them! The options range from very heavy and expensive, through heavy and expensive to lighter and cheaper. IQ and shooting envelope go with cost.

If you want the lightest and most flexible kit, I’d get an EM1.3 with a 12-100/4 and one of the Laowa primes. I’d also get a Panasonic 20/1.7.

Not being quite so concerned about hiking weight or Astro, my travelling kit is 8/1.8 Pro fisheye, 12-40/2.8 Pro, 20/1.7 and I would buy a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 mk I.

When comparing lenses, my habit is to start with the best, expensive and heavy one as the benchmark and see what you give up to get lighter and cheaper.

That would make the Panasonic 10-25/1.7 and Olympus 40-150/2.8 the starting point, plus (haha!) the Olympus 150-400/4.5, plus the Sigma 30/1.4. Now spend less and lose a lot of weight but give up IQ and light capture.

Andrew

 

[doug_fir89]

Thanks for your input, I'm following a similar process in determining lenses. I think I'm leaning strongest toward the 12-40mm Pro.

But I have a lingering concern. The Sony A7 III is comparable in price to the Olympus OM-D models of interest, and the lenses for landscape and astro aren't substantially larger or more expensive (in some cases, their cheaper). I'm drawn to the idea that M43 is cheaper, smaller and more durable, but if the first two aren't necessarily true, I feel I can compromise on durability given the benefits full frame provides (low light, which I intend to do a fair bit of after setting up camp). I huge part of the M43 appeal is access to a cheaper ecosystem, but I guess I don't personally know how true that is, nor do I fully understand just how much better the Olympus series is at shooting without a tripod. Might a A7 II/III be a better way to go for me? It's so hard to tell..

If, for example, the Olympus enables some hand held starry sky landscape shots and the Sony can't, then hands down I'm going with Olympus.

 

[ahaslett]

Thanks for your input, I'm following a similar process in determining lenses.

But I have a lingering concern. The Sony A7 series is comparable in price to the Olympus OM-D models, and the lenses for landscape and astro aren't substantially larger or more expensive (in some cases, their cheaper). I'm drawn to the idea that M43 is cheaper, smaller and more durable, but if the first two aren't necessarily true, I feel I can compromise on durability. Might a A7 II/III be a better way to go for me? It's so hard to tell..

I have an A7R4 and an EM1.2. Sony IBIS is much worse than Olympus and you don’t get quite a lot of functions like HHHiRes, Live ND, Live Composite, Starry AF etc. (assuming an EM1.3). I wouldn’t rely on Sony weathersealing before 4th gen bodies apart from the A7Siii.

Both FE and MFT have a huge lens choice but the emphasis is different. The only advantage of an A7iii over an EM1.2 is DR at base ISO. That gets eaten up pretty quickly by the advantage of IBIS and the need for longer exposures on FF to stick at base ISO when shooting at the same DoF.

If you are happy shooting on a tripod and use a modern body like the A7iv or A7Riv, then you can get a bigger shooting envelope with Sony. The Sony 20/1.8 is a great lens.

It all depends what your priorities are. The FE system will be more expensive and heavier than a high-end Olympus hiking system for landscape.




Handheld




Tripod



Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Hope1943]

As much as I like the EM5 mark iii, I recommend the EM1 mark iii. Other than small size, it is a better camera IMO. On the EM5 mark iii you might be tempted to use that darned clip on the tripod fitting - DON'T! and don't use anything that let's the camera flop around by something on the tripod fitting.

Peace.

John

 

[doug_fir89]

I have an A7R4 and an EM1.2. Sony IBIS is much worse than Olympus and you don’t get quite a lot of functions like HHHiRes, Live ND, Live Composite, Starry AF etc. (assuming an EM1.3). I wouldn’t rely on Sony weathersealing before 4th gen bodies apart from the A7Siii.

Those functionalities are all key to me, so thanks! I'd like to minimize fiddling on the PC too much, and Olympus seems better geared toward that with Live Comp and Starry AF built in.

Both FE and MFT have a huge lens choice but the emphasis is different. The only advantage of an A7iii over an EM1.2 is DR at base ISO. That gets eaten up pretty quickly by the advantage of IBIS and the need for longer exposures on FF to stick at base ISO when shooting at the same DoF.

If you are happy shooting on a tripod and use a modern body like the A7iv or A7Riv, then you can get a bigger shooting envelope with Sony. The Sony 20/1.8 is a great lens.

I would really like to commit to whatever ecosystem shoots best with no tripod (among other things, such as price, size/weight, durability and quality).

There's a lot of naysayers out there wrt astro shooting on M43, so it can be a bit of a damper on my purchase confidence. I appreciate the clarity you've provided, and the very nice pictures!! Especially the handheld. Am I more likely to get hand held starry skies with the Olympus, assuming the proper equipment?

 

[doug_fir89]

As much as I like the EM5 mark iii, I recommend the EM1 mark iii. Other than small size, it is a better camera IMO. On the EM5 mark iii you might be tempted to use that darned clip on the tripod fitting - DON'T! and don't use anything that let's the camera flop around by something on the tripod fitting.

Peace.

John

One of my only hesitations in buying the MK III is the upcoming release in 2022. I feel the MK III will likely take a big hit in the second hand markets, so it may be best to wait to either wait it out or buy a more price robust model for now.

 

[Craig from Nevada]

As much as I like the EM5 mark iii, I recommend the EM1 mark iii. Other than small size, it is a better camera IMO. On the EM5 mark iii you might be tempted to use that darned clip on the tripod fitting - DON'T! and don't use anything that let's the camera flop around by something on the tripod fitting.

Peace.

John

One of my only hesitations in buying the MK III is the upcoming release in 2022. I feel the MK III will likely take a big hit in the second hand markets, so it may be best to wait to either wait it out or buy a more price robust model for now.

The EM-1 mark III includes Starry Skies function. Very helpful for focusing on the night sky. Paired with the 12-40, you can do a lot. You also get the HHHR function as well.

Both the body and lens are worth the price when on sale.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

The EM-1 III and EM-1X share the same sensor with the EM-1 II (and later EM-5 models). Stabilization is yet greater on the newest bodies but the EM-1 II is fine for me on handheld images up to about 1/2 second. But I would tend to hold the SS to 1/10 to 1/4 second by raising the ISO to 800 or 1600.

If you didn't own any bodies, would you go for the E-M1 III? As a noob buying my first real system, optimizing for hand-held shooting quality seems well worth it, but I can't speak form experience here. Given your kit list though, it seems you already have a lot success using the E-M1 II with no tripod.

I just bought a second EM-1 II this fall. It is a heck of a deal if you can pick one up for $999. This body appears to be ultra reliable based on records since it's 2016 release. The EM-1 III is doubtless better for birding and has much improved eye focus for humans. But the latter is not that relevant for me because I shoot most of my images with MF - excepting birds, bees, and butterflies. The III also has "Starry Sky" which I can shoot anyway with a tripod, and has an electronic ND filter for waterfalls for instance, but is a somewhat larger body, and the EM-1 II performs well for me in mountain and desert photography. The EM-1X is good for handheld cloudy day forest images because of stabilization. The same would be true for the EM-1 III. If you are inclined to shoot HiRes images with or w/o a tripod, the newer bodies are better. I am not as I have many thousands of images and I could print to 20x24 with the EM-1 II.

1) EM-1 I and 12-40 - my lightest kit..

2) EM-1 II and 12-45 and maybe 35-100 on certain mountain hikes depending on quality of scenery. The 12-45 is about as good as the 12-40 but I believe the 12-40 is better beyond F6.3.

3) Add the 60 macro when appropriate. For high magnification a tripod is necessary and I would Focus Stack. But no tripod necessary for mountain or desert flowers. I also use the 60 macro for bees without a tripod.

4) EM-1 II and 12-45, 35-100, and 8mm FE for some backpacks. The 8mm FE is very good for high open mountain ridges. No tripod.

5) EM-1 II and 12-45, 50-200, and maybe 8mm FE for backpacks where I expect interesting wildlife. No tripod.

6) EM-1 II and 12-40 and 35-100 or 50-200 and 8mm FE for night photography of MW or Northern Lights. This requires a tripod and long exposures of 20-30 seconds for MW; significantly shorter SS for good Northern Lights.

7) EM-1X for macro winter hikes with 12-40 or 12-45 and 60 macro. Add a tripod for the macro.

8) For bees and Butterflies maybe the EM-1X 12-45, 60 macro, and 300 F4 - no tripod. Generally hikes less than ten miles with the heavier gear.

(9) For birding EM-1X and 300F4 plus TC-14. No tripod. Maybe add the 12-40 depending on scenery.

The 8mm FE at F1.8 and the 12-40 will work for MW. The 8mm FE is excellent for this. Without the desire to shoot the MW, the new 8-25 could replace the 8mm FE on hikes.

I noticed you don't really pack your 12-40 much, comparatively? I'm not really a fan of fish eye at the moment, so I'm leaning toward the 12-40mm out of those, and it seems a fair bit more versatile. Thanks for your detailed input!

Both the 12-40 and 12-45 are very versatile in terms of focal lengths I am most likely to use in mountain photography. On many hikes with just a single lens, the 12-40 is still just fine for me as that is still a light and compact single lens kit. I generally shoot mountain images at F4.5 to F7.1 - but at F7.1 I think I observe that the 12-40 is a bit better. Both are very nice lenses. F2.8 to me is marginal for MW - but I shot most of those images with the EM-1 I and the sensor was not as good as on cameras beginning with the EM-1 II (20MP sensor).

 

[Eric Nepean]

There are so many ways of making a lens set in M43. I've put a * after the ones I own and reccomend. (3 Oly bodies, 3 panny bodies)

My favorite prime is the Panny 15/1.7*, good for lowlight work and for astro. Very small and light.

Just recently got the Laowa 10/2*, a nice small lightweight lens, auto everything except focus.

There are a lot of small lightweight, fast decent quality primes available:

Laowa 7.5/2*, Oly 8/1.8, Laowa 10/2*, Oly 12/2, Panny 15/1.7*, Oly 17/1.8, Panny 20/1.7*, Oly 25/1.8*

And then the slightly larger ones: Panny 12/1.4, Sigma 16/1.4, Panny 25/1.4, and the really big ones: Voight 10.5/0.95, Oly 17/1.2, Voight 17/0.95, Oly 25/1.2, Voight 25/0.95

The Olympus 12-40/2.8 is a fine lens but a touch on the heavy side - same can be said for the Olympus 12-100*. I would not want to go hiking witth either of these.

There have been a lot of favourable comments about the Oly 12-200. A 17X zoom will not be a sharp and defect free as a 3:1 zoom or a prime, but this nevertheless seems like quite a useable lens.

The Panny 14-140/3.5/5.6 II has a received a lot of good comments - a lightweight weather proof lens. But is is a 10X zoom, sharpness will not be as good as the shorter zooms.

The Panny 12-32* zoom is a very small lens of good quality and very inexpensive. Often bundled witth a camera. You can also find them new but stripped off a camera bundle for a very low price.

The 12-45/4, 8-25/4, 12-60/2.8-4 and 12-35/2.8 zooms are all reasonably lightweight and sharp. The Panny 12-35/2.8* theoretically has purple blob issues on an Olympus body, but I've never seen it happen.The Panny 8-18 is a little bigger and might have some purple blob issues on an Olympus camera, the Panny 7-14/4 is light but has definite purple blob issues with an Oly body. The 7-14/2.8* is a bit on the heavy side for a hike.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

As much as I like the EM5 mark iii, I recommend the EM1 mark iii. Other than small size, it is a better camera IMO. On the EM5 mark iii you might be tempted to use that darned clip on the tripod fitting - DON'T! and don't use anything that let's the camera flop around by something on the tripod fitting.

Peace.

John

One of my only hesitations in buying the MK III is the upcoming release in 2022. I feel the MK III will likely take a big hit in the second hand markets, so it may be best to wait to either wait it out or buy a more price robust model for now.

The EM-1 mark III includes Starry Skies function. Very helpful for focusing on the night sky. Paired with the 12-40, you can do a lot. You also get the HHHR function as well.

Both the body and lens are worth the price when on sale.

Starry Sky, HHHR and Live ND are all terrific tools for the dedicated landscaper. E-M1iii isn't the lightest camera to backpack with but the feature set is unequaled (no other model has those three features. The IBIS is class-leading as well.

The 12-40 is a very nice lens to anchor a kit with, adding specialty lenses as your needs become more clear.

Good luck!

Rick