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

EyeMac said:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time.

Click to expand...

I don't have the 12-40, but I have the 12-60. It's not a straight f2.8, but it is the fastest zoom I have. But I don't use it that much, rather the 14-150 stays on in the day, and at night I'm likely to use the 17/1.8 If I didn't have the 14-150, the 12-60 would get more use, but so would the 17... because the 12-60 is kind of chunky, and sometimes you don't want that much on the front of the camera. The 12-40 might be 'fast enough' for my night shooting, but for street, I like the 17 because it is less obtrusive. Don't know how much that concerns you

EyeMac said:

I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

Click to expand...

EyeMac said:

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't dump the 9-18, I wouldn't want to give up the wide end. Now if I had a prime in the 7-9 range, I might give up. The 40-150 I no longer use, having replaced it and the 12-50 w the 14-150.
If you don't need the reach of the 75-300, don't keep it. I have the 100-300, and while I don't use it a lot, I wouldn't give it up (unless I managed to acquire the 300 Pro)

I wouldn't want to have the 12-40, 40-150 pro pair alone, as I prefer a lighter kit. If you put more emphasis on quality than portability, than the pro lenses may be the best solution for you.

As for supplementing w primes, do you need the extra light? Or shallower DoF? Or do you sometimes want a smaller lens? If you can't answer yes to any of those, you don't need any (additional) primes.

That entirely depends on what you shoot and your shooting style.

For me the answer is yes but with a different primes set - 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8

Pix

Nice photo. I agree that if you primarily like landscapes and want a weather sealed lens then the 12-40 is a most excellent choice. I also like looking at other people's work and seeing what lens they achieved it with, often trying to guess the lens before looking at the exif.

Hi

I use the 12-40mm but it is a relatively big lens, so I use the 12-32mm in good light and 20mm f1.7 when I want to be compact in low light, or the 17.5mm f0.95 if I am out at night having fun!

If I need one lens to do it all then I will take the 12-40mm.

--
Berni29
EM1, EM-10mkII, GM1 + Pana 12-32mm, 35-100mm f2.8, 20mm f1.7, Voight 17.5mm f0.95, Oly 12-40mm, 45mm, 50mm F2 macro, (prev EM10, EM5, GH1, E30, E510, E1, E300, LX3)

It depends on your comfort zone. We do a lot of RV travel that takes us far from home. I started MFT with the OM 5 and old kit lens...hated the lens, so I added the 17...my favorite coverage angle in any format. Then added the 25 & 45. Traded up from the M5 to the M1 and the 12-40 Pro, but kept the primes as I have had lenses fail in the past...and they do get broken The Pen F will probably give me a compact backup body and an almost coat pocketable combo with any of my primes. I just added the 7-14 Pro as I find the wide end of the 12-40 not quite wide enough inside.

This gives me a backup super wide and a backup body. Then the Canons go.

EyeMac said:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

Click to expand...

Kia Ora EyeMac,

What do you photograph mostly? Do you plan to expand your subject range?

We holidayed in New Plymouth last June and I noticed that the photographic shop in the main drag had the 40-150mm PRO + TC for a pretty good price. I bought it when back in Perth and really love the lens for bird photography. The 12-40mm is great for everything else. So, yes, cash in your Bonus Bonds and buy the 40-150mm PRO + TC.

Cheers, Mark

EyeMac said:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

Click to expand...

True.

EyeMac said:

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time.

Click to expand...

Changed my life, totally eliminated any prime lust within that range. First on E-PL5 now on E-P5.

EyeMac said:

I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

EyeMac said:

I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

Click to expand...

I still see the 75-300mm as a keeper just because it does go to 300mm, even though I rarely carry or use it, but when you do need 300mm, there it is.

EyeMac said:

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

Click to expand...

No, too chunky and heavy for so little use for me for the 40-150/2.8, passed on that one.

Went wide instead, got a less than half price 9mm body cap fisheye just because I could and surprisingly had so much fun that I immediately plonked my money down for the Samyang 7.5mm and am having a total heap more fun. It always goes with me and is the most used lens after the heavily used 12-40mm.

Regards......Guy

EyeMac said:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

Click to expand...

Trade the advantages of a bag of primes for the convenience of a pair of zooms ?
No.

When I'm actively shooting my 12-35 does yeoman duty.
But that lens is just a bit too big for daily carry in a single lens quick kit.

If I didn't have an assortment of compact wide, normal and near telephoto fast primes my kit would be painfully incomplete.

If you would even consider going 'primeless' then you use your kit in a different way.
Me ? I need to keep a level of versatility that includes specific use primes and flexible zooms.

--

rd

A full range of versatility is the name of the game, I didn't feel my Micro Four Thirds kit was complete until I bought my 45/1.8.

Personally, if I had the money, I would get the 40-150 PRO + TC as my only telephoto and keep a couple of fast primes to cover the wider end. Or go double PRO and keep one prime for the size. Due to my student budget my only telephoto is the 75-300 and I'm constantly wishing for something faster.

But it all depends on your subjects, really. I'd really love to shoot more birds and wildlife but I feel like my budget is holding me back. If you rarely feel like you have use for a telephoto lens, your money might be better spent otherwise. Budget permitting, I would happily own and definitely would find use for both 12-40 PRO and a bunch of fast primes, but if I had to choose between them, the size and weight of those primes would make the decision easy for me.

OmarCCX said:

I already have the Panasonic 25mm 1.4. My next lens will be the 12-40mm to cover the wider end of things. I'm not particularly interested in any of the wide angle primes (12mm, 15mm, 17mm). My favorite out of those 3 would be the 15mm, but I'm not too fond of that focal length. So what I'll do instead is to get one or two primes to cover the longer side of things.

I'm thinking the Olympus 45mm and Sigma 60mm would fit the bill. I love their rendering from the pictures I've seen. Plus, they're very inexpensive and light to boot.

In total, one zoom, three primes. I'll mix and match them depending on the intended use.

Click to expand...

Well people go on about their 'three prime sets" but the fact is they are so light and readily affordable that you could bring six wherever you go and not complain too much.

I have all the Olympus primes except for the 75mm which my Sigma 60 has sort of replaced. The 17mm now gets the most use even though I don't rate it as high as any of my other primes. If Oly comes out with an f1.2 17mm lens that improves on the quality of the f1.8, I wil buy it in a second. I think the 35mm (or thereabouts) field of view suits my sense of perspective best.

For stars, I've found the samyang 7.5mm the best lens.

12 = no (at this FL, don't really need extra speed/DOF control)

17 = maybe (if I wanted super lightweight and faster; I own this, but in practice, seldom use it)

45 = yes (great for portraits)

OmarCCX said:

I already have the Panasonic 25mm 1.4. My next lens will be the 12-40mm to cover the wider end of things. I'm not particularly interested in any of the wide angle primes (12mm, 15mm, 17mm). My favorite out of those 3 would be the 15mm, but I'm not too fond of that focal length.

Click to expand...

I can imagine the conversation at Panasonic when they made the 15mm:

Nakajima-san: "I want to make a fast 35mm equivalent lens."

Watanabe-san: "But I want to make a fast 28mm equivalent lens."

Nakajima-san: "No! We need a fast 35mm equivalent lens."

Watanabe-san: "No! We need a fast 28mm equivalent lens."

At this point, the boss steps in and forces the two employees to compromise. And thus was born the Panasonic 15mm lens.

At one time I owned the 12-40. I consider it one of the best most versatile lenses I've ever owned and is a spectacular piece of optical engineering. For the type of photography I mostly do, which is people/family photography I always found it left me wanting a little more. A little more reach at the long end. A little more light when it got darker. A little lighter as it was pretty big and heavy on a E-M5 and E-P5. A little wider at the wide end. Once I got my 17/1.8 I found I rarely used my 12-40 any more. In poor lighting I would reach for a fast prime. During the day and in good lighting I didn't need the f2.8 and would reach for something lighter instead. If I were to only own one lens that would be the one I would own. But since I can and do own more than one, I find there always seems to be a better option for me in any given situation than the 12-40. And even with a one lens solution I feel (with people photography mind you) that the 14-150 and a FL600R gives me a much better keeper rate for people in a much wider variety of situations.

In my dSLR(Nikon DX) setup, fast f2.8 zooms(I have 2 zooms covering 28-200mm f2.8 equiv) is the way to go because of poor prime lens offerings. And dSLR bodies being big/heavy, I find bigger lenses are more ergonomic. Thankfully, I only need to lug those around for 4-6 times a year for my kids' school events.

The reverse is true for my m43(EM10 + GM1) setup. I have 7 primes, and 3 zooms [9-18mm(usage - 25%), 40-150mm f4.0-5.6(1%), 75-300mm(1%)]. No PRO lenses for reasons mentioned above. I would love a 12mmf2 but my 14mmf2.5 plus wide converter is sufficient for me.

You don't know how long I've waited for a system such as our m43 where portability is prime(pun intended). I also don't see myself upgrading to m43 bodies bigger than the EM5 MkII or GX7.

I bought the EM-1 first (with adapter), the 17 1.8mm (on sale), and the 12-40 (on sale).

I then purchased the 45mm used, the 75mm new (on sale) and the 12mm used (40% price). I also sprang for the 40-150 Pro and TC new! I then got the 25mm 1.8 used. I could very nearly sell all my m4/3 lenses for 90% of what I paid for them after having them for almost two years.

I use the zooms mostly for outdoorsy stuff that requires either weather sealing, or zoom versatility. (When I had the E-3/5, the 12-60 and 50-200 were my go-to lenses)

Now I usually take the primes with me on a daily basis, as they are lighter, faster, and just fit the EM-1 so nicely. The zooms stay in the trunk just in case.

The 12, 17, 25, 45, and 75 are really good lenses, and I find the faster F stop significant, especially in the evenings, and for shooting my grandkiddies.

The only reason I would get rid of any of my lenses is that I have too many, and can never decide which ones I should take. Maybe fewer lenses would be better.

I agree with the others that have recommended the 45mm 1.8. This is probably the best value prime. The 17mm would be next, as the build quality, pull-back-to-focus, and rendering, make this an excellent all around lens.

The 12, while very sharp (my copy), is probably not necessary if you have the 12-40.

The other prime you should really consider is the 75mm. It replaces the 40-150 (pro or not) for a lot of situations, and complements the 12-40 perfectly. I would take this lens over the 45mm for focal lengths over 40mm if I had to choose just one.

EyeMac said:

...

Click to expand...

Yes! but just the 45mm.

EyeMac said:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

Click to expand...

True with everyone

EyeMac said:

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much.

Click to expand...

But you have a 1.7 prime you want to sell for unknown reasons? Why not give the lens a go before buying three others?

EyeMac said:

I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use.

Click to expand...

And you want to buy the pro 2.8 version? I have the Panasonic 45-150 for a present and I only used it for light travel to abroad.

EyeMac said:

My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me.

Click to expand...

I own the 100-300 and it's flaws are more noticable on modern MFT cameras.

EyeMac said:

I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

Click to expand...

Why do you need 12mm 2.0 when you have the 12-40mm 2.8? If you're planning on shooting low light landscape or cityscape then I understand but you haven't given the reason why you want to purchase such of a lens. Why do you need the 17mm 1.8 instead of the 25mm? I got myself the 45mm 2.8 for it macro feature because I knew if I would use this lens more than the 45mm 1.8. So if you're not convinced you will use these lenses and haven't provided a reason why then don't buy them.

EyeMac said:

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Click to expand...

You said you rarely used the slower 40-150 lens so what is the point in purchasing the faster version especially you mentioned earlier you don't use the 70-300 much!

EyeMac said:

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

Click to expand...

No! These two lenses would cover a lot of situations but shooting with only two lenses is insane when you already have 5. Most people would require six lenses max and people who own more than six either has too many lenses or require them for their professional work.

When I switched over to m43, I purchased the 12, PL25, OL45, and happily used them. The PL25 was and is my favorite lens IQ-wise. When the 75mm came out, I bought it as well - great great lens. I later bought the 12-40mm used off ebay for a good price. It's now used most of the time for travel. For non-travel, I use the primes.

My 12-40 is as sharp as any prime up to 35mm. My copy is a bit disappointing at 40mm, maybe something amiss with my used copy, don't know. It's near macro capability is very nice to have as well. It's a very versatile lens, and it's nice not to worry so much in a light rain. It is heavy for m43, but compared to just about every other f2.8 standard zoom for other formats, it's quite small. If weight is an issue maybe look at the 12-35 for near equal IQ, but give up some reach and the near-macro capability.

Now even though the 12-40 is my main travel lens, I do admit that something in me misses the primes. I don't know exactly what it is, maybe I'm just trying to convince myself of something that doesn't really exist, but I find I like the rendering of the primes just a little more. And even though the size/weight is small for an f2.8 lens, I miss the form factor of the small prime on a small camera, which is why I got into m43 in the first place.

Now if I"m being honest, my 9-18mm at the same f-stop is dang near as sharp as the 12-40 - especially at 9 and 12mm. Most any lens is pretty good a f5.6. My next trip, I may decide to leave the 12-40 at home and travel with the 9-18 and a prime or two.

Don't know if I answered your question, but in the end only you can decide if the 12-40 will work for you. In short, it's as sharp as most any prime (mine up to 35mm most everyone else says 40 is fine as well), so yes, it can very well serve the purpose as a do it all standard lens.

Use them for different purposes.

Pro lenses for when speed is of the essence, and I need to take a lot of pictures fast. I'm not bothered by the weight or size in this instance because I'm constantly using the camera. E.g. I'm taking shots of something moving, or I'm moving myself (like on a boat in Venice).

Prime lenses more for casual use, when I have time, or a controlled setup to use them. Also for walk-around, since the camera is a lot more balanced on a strap and doesn't flop around. It's just a lot more pleasant to have a smaller lighter setup that can still take high performance images. Can stuff an extra prime in a small bag to cover more possible use.

I also use a E-PL7 for even more casual use, or switch to an E-M5 II for more performance when size and weight don't matter as much. Actually I have 2 E-M5 II cameras so I don't have to switch lenses on a single body when time is really critical. Funny enough I find that this is as often on vacation as it is at work, where people roll eyes when I try to swap lenses as we're walking around.