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

Started Apr 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
ryan2007 Forum Pro • Posts: 12,001
Re: Are the constant aperture Panasonic lenses worth it (and are you wating for Olympus?)

zenpmd wrote:

Buying them together is just such a lot of money. But imaging the possiblities of the two together is just mind blowing for the size and quality.

What is everyone elses thoughts, and who is waiting for Olympus are about to offer? As far as I know there is no plan for a zoom like the 35-100 2.8, just the shorter zoom, which is sadly not as wide as the Panasonic but might be smaller (due to the lack of IS) and hopefully won't have the CA that it suffers from on the Oly.

Yours thoughts most welcome!

Just traveled to the Caribbean (cruise) with the GH-3, 12-35, 35-100, 7-14 and 25 1.4.  The 12-35 got 98% use as a main lens. The 35-100 & 7-14 not as much and I never needed the 25 1.4.

I used my Metz 50 AF-1 98% of the time and I also have a very compact flash bracket that came in handy with the Gary Fong Collapsible light sphere.

For all beach and water related stuff I have the Olympus TG-1 with wide angle lens attachment. Depending on the evening plans I used both the TG-1 and GH-3 with the 12-35, not at the same time, just depending on plans.

I had assorted filters that I never used.

So yes, fast zoom lens are 100% better when you are in the move and with a group. No one wants to wait for a lens change, you have to get the shot/moment or just accept the lens you have and make do with what ever limitation it has. Meaning if you can not fill the frame the way you want.

I would really have liked a fast 2.8  12mm - 55 mm, the 24-120 2.8 would have been nice as a main lens.

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