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

EyeMac wrote:

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?

Found your thread and OP interesting to say the least.

I bought an EM1 and then acquired, (in this order) the 17mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2; and 45mm f/1.8.

I bought the first two primes after reviews I'd read/watched and wanted each for landscape/city images. Bought the last as a light telephoto mainly for portraiture.

I'd considered buying the 12-40mm f/2.8 pro only because of its weatherproof capabilities. I can't take my primes out in rain or snow and I get both five months out of the year.

But why, then, did I buy the primes first? Because I wanted them to force me to think about composition, primarily, and secondarily, the smaller lenses seemed less conspicuous to me.

But I just asked for opinions on a new thread about deciding between the 40-150 f/2.8 pro and the new 300mm f/4 pro.

The reason I wanted to choose one of these is the same reason I was thinking about the 12-40 f/2.8 pro: weatherproofing. Plus, the 40 overlapped nicely with the 45 and then offers me all the focal lengths up to 150mm! Adding the MC 1.4TC would give you/me/us additional reach to 420mm (35mm equiv.)!

Most told me the 40-150mm was a no-brainer because of the focal length range. The few who've advocated the 300mm say if I'm going to do a lot of nature/bird shooting it would be the way to go, and adding the TC would offer an 840mm super-telephoto capability.

Bottom line: for me, I'm saving for the 40-150mm f/2.8 pro, over a brief consideration of the 60mm f/2.8 Macro pro (nice FL but not interested in macro), and the 12-40mm f/2.8 pro, because it would: A) finally give me a "pro" weatherproof lens, and on top of it B) would give me my primary telephoto focal lengths to compliment the upper end of my kit that ends with my 45mm right now.

Apologies for a lengthy reply but your post was so like my own thinking I simply had to offer my thoughts here.

Many thanks -