Is the 12-40mm good enough to forego 12mm, 17mm, 25mm and 45mm primes?

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Questions thread
DonTom Contributing Member • Posts: 535
Re: For optical qualities, yes.

Pixnat2 wrote:

The 12-40 is as sharp as one can dream about. It's equal or better than the primes you reffered regrading sharpness, CA control, AF speed, etc. It's a "bag full of primes" So, if you don't need faster apertures to shoot in low light, you can't be better covered

Now, if you want to add one prime to your arsenal, may I suggest two that will open new horizons?

  1. the 75mm f/1.8, an ultra fast telephoto that will let you take pictures that you can't with your two zooms.
  2. the 60mm f2.8 macro, that will open the doors for you of the Small World

Those two lenses will let you get the wow factor.

The 45mm is nice, but the 12-40 is good enough to take protraits at 40mm. The 12, 17 and 25 will only add the low light benefit.

Hope it'll help!

-- hide signature --


I would agree with the 60/2.8 macro. It will serve as a portrait lens as well as the macro, and is weatherproofed as well. If you later get the 40-150.2.8 Pro, you can sell it again if you don't need the macro capability.

 DonTom's gear list:DonTom's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow