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

sean000 wrote:

EyeMac wrote:

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?

I love my 12-40mm f/2.8. It's on my E-M5 more than any other lens. I also really want the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, but lack of funds will keep those out of reach for a while. I still have my Nikon D200 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. Wish I could sell them for enough to buy the Oly Pro telephotos!

Even if I had the 40-150mm f/2.8, I would not put all my eggs in the pro zoom basket for a couple of reasons:

• f/1.7-f/1.8 is still a stop and a half faster than f/2.8. That's huge when shooting in really low light conditions. It also blurs the background a little more, although not by much.
• Size and weight

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 is more portable than my old Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, it's still a beast of a lens by m4/3 standards. There are still times when I prefer to walk around with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

I would not get rid of my 9-18mm because 9mm is much wider than 12mm. I also have the Rokinon fisheye. Sometimes I leave the 12-40mm at home and take the 9-18mm, fisheye, 20mmf /1.7 and 45mm f/1.8. Other times it's my 9-18mm, 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7. Just depends on what I'm out shooting.

Most of the time I carry some variation of that kit in a small shoulder bag (Thinktank Retrospective 5), but when I plan to shoot telephoto I will sometimes put my Nikon with 80-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4 in a backpack along with the E-M5 and a few wide to normal lenses. Most of the time I leave the Nikon gear at home for obvious reasons, and the 45-200mm is my telephoto. In considering an upgrade, I have wondered if the 75-300mm might be the better option for me anyway (over the 40-150mm) because it offers portability. It has more reach and better IQ than my 45-200mm, and on sunny days it is fast enough. The problem is that here in the regularly overcast Pacific NW the 40-150mm f2/.8 (or the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8) would be very useful as long as I'm willing to carry it.

Sean

I'm in a similar situation (and location) - I've considered the 75-300 since FT days, but held off due to the speed and softness at the long end. I've also looked the Pany 100-300, but I suspect the 100-400 might just be the answer if and when I decide to jump into a serious telephoto. My 40-150R rarely gives me the IQ I want, so I don't use it much.