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

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Questions thread
Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons Forum Pro • Posts: 28,935
Re: "Monster lens"?

WW Webster wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The 40-150/2.8 Pro will be a monster lens, not the thing that you would carry every day unless you had a definite known deliberate purpose for it ...

A lens slated to be less than 7 inches long is a "monster lens"? Are you serious?

Absolutely, a monster in M4/3 terms.

M4/3 is all about small and portable, that lens will be on the chunky limits so not something that you want would want to tote around all day just in case you see a shot. If a project involves that lens, then sure enough the slight shoulder pain would be worth it, but let's wait and see what the early adopters will make of it.

While the weight of the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro less has not yet been disclosed (to the best of my knowledge), I expect to positively enjoy carrying a lens of that quality around all day on my OM-D E-M1 in preference to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on my EOS 5D MkII. Bring it on!

Each to his own, I can see most of my life happening through the 12-40mm lens, and something less than 5% with a tele zoom.

Regards...... Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5
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