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
cptobvious Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

I had the Panasonic 12-35 but sold it and went back to primes (Oly 12/17 1.8/45, and rebought the 25/1.8). For landscape shooting the 2.8 zooms are actually better than the 12 or 17 due to less field curvature and sharper corners on the 12-40. If all you do are landscapes there is no reason to go with the primes.

However for people subjects I found f/2.8 on MFT to be insufficient for DOF/subject isolation. It's different from f/2.8 on FF where a 24-70 really can provide sufficient background isolation.

I use an E-M10/E-PL7 and carry both with a prime on each. I find shooting with primes much more enjoyable, not just for the DOF flexibility but also they balance much better on the smaller bodies without an external grip.

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