No subject, no story

Started Dec 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
S. Miller Contributing Member • Posts: 874
Re: No subject, no story

Bob Tullis wrote:

S. Miller wrote:

I have a couple of questions for you. I'll be in the city tomorrow afternoon and am planning to stick around through early evening (3pm - 8pm) to hit some spots I've been meaning to photograph. I'm debating about what lenses to bring with my EM5.

mZD 9-18 and PL 25/1.4: definitely

mZD 45/1.8 - possible low light short-tele option

Pana 35-100/2.8 - low-ish light tele zoom option

If I leave the 35-100 at home, then in theory, I won't even need a camera bag. However, I just got the 35-100 so I'd love to take it for a spin. Any thoughts between the 45/1.8 and the 35-100? Neither? Also, I have a light tripod and I'm wondering if I should bring it or will it be more trouble than it's worth? I can only assume if I leave it home, I'll DEFINITELY find a shot that needs it.

Any advice you have is appreciated.

Somewhat belated, but an interesting question. With the 9-18 I feel the tripod must also be towed. The 2.8 lenses can be useful in the brighter areas, but a 1.x lens I feel a must for those more dramatic shadowed opportunities.

At this point after carrying so many focal lengths to be ready for anything, I'm going more commando style, using the faster lenses regardless of how appropriate they might be for different opportunities that arise. I'll go through a long period where the lens chosen must conform to the scene, then change tactics and have a particular FOV be the guiding force (train the eye to see in that FOV alone again). Sort of like how zooming with one's feet makes one think harder about how the interest in front of one can be best conveyed with that limitation. Or the difference of the experience when using MF or AF lenses.

Did I answer the question?

Hi Bob,

Thanks for getting back to me. I ended up taking my EM5 with the 9-18, 25, 35-100, and tripod. It's funny how spoiled I've gotten with the weight of m43. I remember walking around with a backpack of heavy Canon gear and L lenses, but am embarrassed to say that after 8 hours of walking in the city with the above gear, I really wished I hadn't taken the 35-100. It felt so "heavy".

Anyway, as I said above, I only brought the 35-100 because I just got it and I wanted to test it out. Sadly, I ended up using it for only a few shots. The rest of the time my 9-18 was basically glued to the camera and I found it very versatile. When night came and I wasn't taking tripod mounted skyline shots, I used the 25/1.4 but felt like a fish out of water because I'm fairly new to street photography, let alone street at night.

I've been debating about getting a fast wide-ish angle prime like the 12/2 or 17/1.8, and am leaning towards the 17. The appeal of both of those lenses is their ability to zone focus. So even though they'll be fast lenses that I can use at night, I would probably use them at least as much for daytime shots. I looked at the EXIF for the shots I took on Monday and sure enough, most were shot at either 9 or 18. This leads me to believe that I can meet my needs with the 17 paired with the 9-18. Add my 45/1.8 and I've got a VERY lightweight city walkabout kit.

If you have any thoughts about the 12 vs 17, I'd love to hear them. Oh yeah, I've seen the online reviews that the new 17/1.8 is just okay. I'm not one of those pixel peepers that obsesses about corner sharpness. The images I've seen look great with regard to color, contrast and overall sharpness so I'm assuming the lens will produce great images...if I'm up to the task.



P.S. I'll post images soon

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
/"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."/ - Little Big Man

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow