Lens choices for an Olympus OM-E5 ( just 2 really)

The mFT 40-150 is cheap, and optically very good. No more hunting. You will use it much more than the 73-300. YOMV.

Michael M Fliegel said:

The mFT 40-150 is cheap, and optically very good. No more hunting. You will use it much more than the 73-300. YOMV.

Click to expand...

I am thinking this way too, but if I ever decide to stay with a M4/3 system, it would be awesome to have the zoom range that the 75-300mm have. 150-600mm is quite a lens for birding, but of course I have no idea how it performs on such a Tiny body.

Thanks

How does the 75-300 perform on the OM-D? Excellent! Having up to 600mm equivalent, image stabilized, is awesome.

Answell said:

Michael M Fliegel said:

The mFT 40-150 is cheap, and optically very good. No more hunting. You will use it much more than the 73-300. YOMV.

Click to expand...

I am thinking this way too, but if I ever decide to stay with a M4/3 system, it would be awesome to have the zoom range that the 75-300mm have. 150-600mm is quite a lens for birding, but of course I have no idea how it performs on such a Tiny body.

Thanks

Click to expand...

The 40-150 is my walk-about lens, I also use the 75-300 when I want more reach but otherwise I use primes for 45mm or less, not the kit zoom.

Ron Evers said:

Answell said:

Michael M Fliegel said:

The mFT 40-150 is cheap, and optically very good. No more hunting. You will use it much more than the 73-300. YOMV.

Click to expand...

I am thinking this way too, but if I ever decide to stay with a M4/3 system, it would be awesome to have the zoom range that the 75-300mm have. 150-600mm is quite a lens for birding, but of course I have no idea how it performs on such a Tiny body.

Thanks

Click to expand...

The 40-150 is my walk-about lens, I also use the 75-300 when I want more reach but otherwise I use primes for 45mm or less, not the kit zoom.

--
The wood is clear between the knots.

Click to expand...

Thanks guys. My thoughts are, that having a lens with the kind of zoom range as the 75-300 is a +++ as you do not always have to rack it out all the way . In other words, if 150mm, or 200mm is all you need for a certain photo, then you have it in one lens, but on the other hand, when you really need the reach, you also have it. The thing is, I value all inputs, and it is sometimes confusing. The price difference between the 40-150 , and the 75-300 is just around $300 . Not really that big an expense.

Hi,

I would go fro the 40-150 - cheap and my copy is really sharp, I also have the 12-40 F2.8 and love it so those two would be my choice but as you have the 14-45 I would just add the 40-150.

Scott.

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Click to expand...

What are your two favorite lenses on your Nikon camera? What are the ones that you use the most? Buy equivalent m4/3 lenses. That's as simple as that.

Don't look at their prices: buy the best and you won't regret it.

The 40-150 is much smaller and lighter than the 75-300. It really keeps the system small and is great for travel or when you want one lens on the camera and the other in your jacket pocket. You can frequently get this lens for $99 (US).

The 75-300 is much larger, although still small compared to similar telephoto on your Nikon. It is a terrific lens despite relatively slow aperture. A word of advice - if you are used to heavier telephoto lenses, don't be surprised if you have to practice a bit to get sharp shots using lightweight set up. Most of us have had to learn how to hold lighter system still to get sharp shots. Only takes a few days but might catch you by surprise at first.

The m43 40-150 is the best value in photography AFAIK- good, inexpensive and very easy to have with you. I've only used the 75-300 in the store but was not impressed; I use the 43 50-200 + ec14 which is generally considered better around here. But I still bought and often carry the 40-150 because it's so much more portable and inconspicuous.

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Because of this, and not really sure if I will stick with my Nikon or go the M4/3 way, I do not want to invest too much on Olympus lenses at the moment . I have so far the Oly 14-42mm, the 4/3 40-150mm and an AF adapter which works with a lot of hunting at first, so what I am thinking is to keep the 14-42 , and buy either the 40-150mm M4/3 or go for the 75-300mm which I hear is a good lens. I am more inclined to want to go with the 75-300mm rather than the 40-150mm as this lens could be a keeper if and when I switch over. Is this a good choice? or would you buy the 40-150mm as it is so much cheaper.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Since I purchased the 75-300 I rarely use the 40-150 any more. The 75-300 is a better lens as far as construction and optics. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the 40-150 is a great lens and if you are going the M43 route as a trial I would buy the 40-150, since it is so inexpensive and gives great results.

JeanPierre Martel said:

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Click to expand...

What are your two favorite lenses on your Nikon camera? What are the ones that you use the most? Buy equivalent m4/3 lenses. That's as simple as that.

Don't look at their prices: buy the best and you won't regret it.

Click to expand...

The lens that I use most often on my Nikon is an older 24-120 D . It has a nice reach, and tack sharp although they go quite cheap on ebay. It is built like a brick too. Anyway, there is no clear choice for me with my Nikon lenses. It all depends on the type of photography that comes up on any day. Sometimes I use my 70-200mm 2.8 , and sometimes I have just the 300mm on the camera. I do not favor one type of photography. I like landscape just as much as bird photography, and sometimes I am into macro, but I am now going to go with the flow, and get the 40-150 as many of you have suggested, as I won't be out much money should I change my mind about the M4/3 system

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Because of this, and not really sure if I will stick with my Nikon or go the M4/3 way, I do not want to invest too much on Olympus lenses at the moment . I have so far the Oly 14-42mm, the 4/3 40-150mm and an AF adapter which works with a lot of hunting at first, so what I am thinking is to keep the 14-42 , and buy either the 40-150mm M4/3 or go for the 75-300mm which I hear is a good lens. I am more inclined to want to go with the 75-300mm rather than the 40-150mm as this lens could be a keeper if and when I switch over. Is this a good choice? or would you buy the 40-150mm as it is so much cheaper.

Thanks

Click to expand...

I have the 40-150 and I was really surprised with it's IQ when I got it.

I never really liked zoom lenses, I've always been a prime-lens-kind-of-guy, but this Oly is amazing.

It's light, yet sturdy, and focuses rather fast (but that also depends on the body, I have an EM5).

It's not exactly a fish eye, but It's wide enough to take close snapshots of people a few feet away from you.

You always get what you pay for, and this is no exception, but I think this is by far the best you can buy at this prize level.

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Because of this, and not really sure if I will stick with my Nikon or go the M4/3 way, I do not want to invest too much on Olympus lenses at the moment . I have so far the Oly 14-42mm, the 4/3 40-150mm and an AF adapter which works with a lot of hunting at first, so what I am thinking is to keep the 14-42 , and buy either the 40-150mm M4/3 or go for the 75-300mm which I hear is a good lens. I am more inclined to want to go with the 75-300mm rather than the 40-150mm as this lens could be a keeper if and when I switch over. Is this a good choice? or would you buy the 40-150mm as it is so much cheaper.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Olympus 40-150 is such a good lens for very little money. No matter what you have this lens is just terrific.

Answell said:

Answell wrote:
The lens that I use most often on my Nikon is an older 24-120 D. (...) there is no clear choice for me with my Nikon lenses. Sometimes I use my 70-200mm 2.8 , and sometimes I have just the 300mm on the camera. I do not favor one type of photography. I like landscape just as much as bird photography, and sometimes I am into macro, but I am now going to go with the flow, and get the 40-150 as many of you have suggested, as I won't be out much money should I change my mind about the M4/3 system

Click to expand...

There are two kind of photographs: zoom guys and prime guys. Obviously, you're a zoom guy.

There are no m4/3 zoom lens which are exact equivalent of your APS-C lenses. So I'll suggest two m4/3 zooms that will not only cover most of the focal range of your favorite Nikon lenses but also give you a little more reach toward the wide-angle part of that range, in order to be more handy when you shoot landscapes.

A) If ever you select a m4/3 camera that has in-body image stabilization, I would suggest to consider the outstanding M.Zuiko 12-40mm and the M.Zuiko 40-150mm. The latter looks cheap, has even a plastic mount but please, don't judge a book by its cover: it's a remarquable telezoom.

B) If you set your choice on a camera devoid of IBIS (like most Panasonic cameras), then my suggestion will be the Lumix 12-35mm and the Lumix 45-150mm zooms (as sharp as the M.Zuiko's equivalent).

These two m4/3 zooms will give you something equivalent to your 24-120mm and 70-200mm Nikon lenses.

Remember that the only real difference is that these m4/3 lenses will give you a DoF not as shallow as the one you can get with your APS-C lenses with the same aperture. On the other hand, you might be amazed by the quality of the results (sharpness and micro-contrast).

JeanPierre Martel said:

JeanPierre Martel said:

Answell wrote:
The lens that I use most often on my Nikon is an older 24-120 D. (...) there is no clear choice for me with my Nikon lenses. Sometimes I use my 70-200mm 2.8 , and sometimes I have just the 300mm on the camera. I do not favor one type of photography. I like landscape just as much as bird photography, and sometimes I am into macro, but I am now going to go with the flow, and get the 40-150 as many of you have suggested, as I won't be out much money should I change my mind about the M4/3 system

Click to expand...

There are two kind of photographs: zoom guys and prime guys. Obviously, you're a zoom guy.

There are no m4/3 zoom lens which are exact equivalent of your APS-C lenses. So I'll suggest two m4/3 zooms that will not only cover most of the focal range of your favorite Nikon lenses but also give you a little more reach toward the wide-angle part of that range, in order to be more handy when you shoot landscapes.

A) If ever you select a m4/3 camera that has in-body image stabilization, I would suggest to consider the outstanding M.Zuiko 12-40mm and the M.Zuiko 40-150mm. The latter looks cheap, has even a plastic mount but please, don't judge a book by its cover: it's a remarquable telezoom.

B) If you set your choice on a camera devoid of IBIS (like most Panasonic cameras), then my suggestion will be the Lumix 12-35mm and the Lumix 45-150mm zooms (as sharp as the M.Zuiko's equivalent).

These two m4/3 zooms will give you something equivalent to your 24-120mm and 70-200mm Nikon lenses.

Remember that the only real difference is that these m4/3 lenses will give you a DoF not as shallow as the one you can get with your APS-C lenses with the same aperture. On the other hand, you might be amazed by the quality of the results (sharpness and micro-contrast).

Click to expand...

The 12-40 and 40-150 is exactly what I have to my E-M5 and those two lenses fill all my needs. The 12-40 is one of the best lenses there is, of all cathegories and brands, and the 40-150 is cheap and very good. You won't be disappointed with those two.

There are two ways to look at this: replacement vs complement. If you knew you were going to switch to m43, I'd look at getting near equivalent lenses like others suggest.

However, you're not sure. You might decide to keep both (like me, with my D5100 & GX7), or stay with Nikon. I started my m43 with the kit 14-42, and the 100-300mm because I didn't have anything like the 100-300 in my Nikon bag, and wanted the reach. I knew I'd keep both for a awhile. I liked using the GX7, so added the oly 60mm macro as another lens NOT in my Nikon bag. Only later when I found myself carrying the m43 all the time did I try to match my Nikon lenses ranges (with the panny 45-150 and oly 9-18).

I chose the 100-300 just because I got a panasonic body, but sometimes wished I had the shorter end of the 75-300. (Now I have the 45-150, so not an issue anymore). My brother really enjoys his 75-300, his first lens (besides the kit) for much the same reasons I got the 100-300 (except he was moving up from the Canon G compact series). He too got the 40-150 lens to fill the gap later.

Personally, I suggest the 75-300. If you keep the m43, you'll get the 40-150 later (or the 40-150/2.8), but while you're still trying out both, you'll have two bodies covering more range/reach, and some overlap to compare.

uRebel Rob said:

There are two ways to look at this: replacement vs complement. If you knew you were going to switch to m43, I'd look at getting near equivalent lenses like others suggest.

However, you're not sure. You might decide to keep both (like me, with my D5100 & GX7), or stay with Nikon. I started my m43 with the kit 14-42, and the 100-300mm because I didn't have anything like the 100-300 in my Nikon bag, and wanted the reach. I knew I'd keep both for a awhile. I liked using the GX7, so added the oly 60mm macro as another lens NOT in my Nikon bag. Only later when I found myself carrying the m43 all the time did I try to match my Nikon lenses ranges (with the panny 45-150 and oly 9-18).

I chose the 100-300 just because I got a panasonic body, but sometimes wished I had the shorter end of the 75-300. (Now I have the 45-150, so not an issue anymore). My brother really enjoys his 75-300, his first lens (besides the kit) for much the same reasons I got the 100-300 (except he was moving up from the Canon G compact series). He too got the 40-150 lens to fill the gap later.

Personally, I suggest the 75-300. If you keep the m43, you'll get the 40-150 later (or the 40-150/2.8), but while you're still trying out both, you'll have two bodies covering more range/reach, and some overlap to compare.

Click to expand...

Thank you all for your responses.

It will take quite sometime for me to make up my mind, so I have decided to keep both systems..at least for now. I have read about the Oly 12-40mm, but it too pricy at the moment since I am not sure which system.

I went down to Best Buy today, looked at the 75-300, 40-150 and the Panasonic 45-175mm. I ended up buying the Panasonic 45-175mm as they had an open box one on sale. It seems like a very nice lens, so for the time being, I will keep the 14-42 and the Panasonic 45-175 , and this should do for now. If I ever decide to get rid of my Nikon system, which I doubt at the moment, I will then look at some fast glass.

Which prime lens should I get? The 17mm 2.8 or the 25mm 2.8 Or neither?

Thanks

Answell said:

Thank you all for your responses.

It will take quite sometime for me to make up my mind, so I have decided to keep both systems..at least for now. I have read about the Oly 12-40mm, but it too pricy at the moment since I am not sure which system.

I went down to Best Buy today, looked at the 75-300, 40-150 and the Panasonic 45-175mm. I ended up buying the Panasonic 45-175mm as they had an open box one on sale. It seems like a very nice lens, so for the time being, I will keep the 14-42 and the Panasonic 45-175 , and this should do for now. If I ever decide to get rid of my Nikon system, which I doubt at the moment, I will then look at some fast glass.

Click to expand...

Those two are good choices, although I would have preferred the MZuiko 40-150mm lens rather than the Panasonic 45-140mm lens. The Panasonic lens is excellent, but the EM5 does not make automatic CA corrections like the Panasonic bodies do, so you may end up with an extra step in post processing.

Answell said:

Which prime lens should I get? The 17mm 2.8 or the 25mm 2.8 Or neither?

Click to expand...

Neither one. I had the 17mm f/2.8 and it was a decent lens but not really special. I traded it in for the 17mm f/1.8 which is a real step up. You already have a 17mm f/3.5 built into your 14-42mm lens, so why spend a few hundred dollars for an f/2.8 lens.

There is no 25mm f/2.8 lens, unless you mean the 4/3 lens. And if you buy that one, you will need an adapter, and have to deal with slow AF. If you meant the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, then either one would be an outstanding choice.

When the 12-40mm lens was announced I decided I had to have it. I really wanted this lens bad based on all the reviews I had read. It really is an outstanding lens. But I changed my mind when I actually got my hands on one and tried it on my EM5.

Yes.... it is a wonderful lens, but it really is too large and heavy for the EM5. It was designed for the EM1, which is larger and has a much nicer grip.

Rather than getting the 12-40mm lens I ended up buying three prime lenses for the same price, the 17mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8, and the 45mm f1.8, and I ended up with a much faster kit that is pretty useful and keeps the carry around weight much lower.



I already owned the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 lens.

All I need now is to find a good deal on a used or refurbished 12mm f/2.0!

Answell said:

Thanks

Click to expand...

--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

Answell said:

Just got my Olympus OM-E5, and so far I think that it is a very nice camera that I might just want to keep. However, I am a Nikon user, and have a Nikon D7100 with tons of Nikon lenses.

Click to expand...

I bought a Nikon D70 in 2004, a D200 in 2007, and over the years more than a dozen Nikon lenses. My most used Nikon lenses were the 17-55mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Tokina 12-24mm f/4, 10.5mm fisheye, and 80-200mm f/2.8. In 2010 I was thinking about upgrading my D200, but the thing that kept nagging me was that i just wanted something more portable. I had been watching mirrorless cameras develop, and the Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f/1.7 kit was the combo that inspired me to try it out.

Answell said:

Because of this, and not really sure if I will stick with my Nikon or go the M4/3 way, I do not want to invest too much on Olympus lenses at the moment .

Click to expand...

That's what I thought as well a few years ago Since then I have sold about half of my Nikon lenses so I could finance m4/3 lenses like the 45mm f/1.8 (truly amazing little lens), and the Rokinon fisheye (sold my Nikon fisheye for twice what it cost). I also upgraded the GF1 to an E-M5. m4/3 is a slippery slope

Answell said:

I have so far the Oly 14-42mm, the 4/3 40-150mm and an AF adapter which works with a lot of hunting at first, so what I am thinking is to keep the 14-42 , and buy either the 40-150mm M4/3 or go for the 75-300mm which I hear is a good lens. I am more inclined to want to go with the 75-300mm rather than the 40-150mm as this lens could be a keeper if and when I switch over. Is this a good choice? or would you buy the 40-150mm as it is so much cheaper.

Thanks

Click to expand...

I think you just need to consider your needs at this time. The 40-150mm is of course MUCH less expensive than the 75-300 (which is a specialty lens). Both are good examples of the advantage m4/3 has in terms of portability.

Deciding what gear to buy next is always a challenge, but even more so when you are shooting with multiple systems. I have come close to selling off my Nikon gear, but I go back and forth. M4/3 is definitely my main system. My Nikon gear excels at event photography (which I used to dabble in) and action photography (which I rarely do). There are times when I love the convenience of the f/2.8 zooms I have for Nikon. If I sold those lenses, I still would not be able to afford the m4/3 f/2.8 zooms. There is also the depth of field difference to consider, but I actually find that I get shallow enough DOF when I want it from m4/3, and it's a bit easier to get more DOF when I want that as well. For me m4/3 really is the Goldilocks format.

That said I love my Nikon gear. I'm thinking about at least selling off everything but the f/2.8 zooms and the Speedlights. I would like to upgrade the D200 to a D7100. Maybe I'd even have enough left over for the Oly 75mm f/1.8

Sean