DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

Started Jan 20, 2016 | Questions thread
Egregius V
Egregius V Contributing Member • Posts: 538
Re: Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

Would the primes serve any purposes that your 12-40 zoom cannot? They could give you lower ISOs in low light or a more shallow depth of field. Or is it that you just like to try different things? Primes have their place, but will only offer a certain amount of benefit over the 12-40 zoom at f/2.8.

I came at this the other way. Before the PRO zooms hit the market, I bought a set of primes for low light and greater subject isolation: the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, & 45/1.8. All have great IQ. Three of them are very pocketable and all are complementary to my zooms. So I take the primes and one or two zooms along on most trips. Or I leave the zooms at home and take just the primes.

I imagine if I were starting with the PRO zoom, I would still want at least one prime lens to go with it (that would be the 25/1.4). I'm not as sure that I would find much benefit in adding a full set of primes to take the place of the zoom - especially considering everything the PRO brings to the table: weather sealing, great sharpness, a single filter size, etc.

-- hide signature --
 Egregius V's gear list:Egregius V's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow