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

zuikowesty wrote:

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.

The Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is definitely the right size for daily carry, but 100mm is a bit short in the telephoto department. Still, it's enough reach for using as an outdoor portrait and action lens when photographing my kids and my wife.... and since it starts at 35mm the zoom range would be very useful for people and events. I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro with a teleconverter would be my pick for versatility (getting long enough for some bird and wildlife shots), but it's a bigger lens to carry. At lease it would be a bit lighter on the backpack than my current Nikon teles.

I have been impressed with what the 75-300 can do on a good day and with enough light. It seems like it would be an upgrade to my 45-200mm. I just haven't gotten around to it because the 45-200mm is usually quite good for the situations I use it in. I guess for now the easiest thing for my budget would be to stick with the gear I've got

Sean