Reading mode: Light Dark

Pro zooms spoiled my primes

Go to last post
I'm currently traveling to Vietnam for 2 weeks

For convenience and readiness of shots, I mount the 12-40 on the Pen F and the 35-100 2.8 on the EM5 II

At times I use the 15mm , especially at night

So the prime is still called for

I have the 45mm but have yet have the need to use it since the 35-100mm can cover that range and more

For this kind of trip I think the 12-100mm and the 15mm would be perfect

Zooms are particularly useful for these kinds of trips

But I'd still want to keep my primes for special occasions

I have pared down quite a bit on primes though: the 75mm, 25mm, 20mm, 12mm I have let go

I keep the 15mm for street, 45mm for portraits and that's it

I'm seriously considering the 12-100mm for any long trip next year

Cheers,
 
Martin Ocando said:
Next December it will be one year with my pro twin outfit, the Oly 12-40 and Panny 35-100. I have also used the 9-18mm like 2 or 3% of the time, but for all the rest, it has been these two zooms. I really try to find opportunities to use my primes, but having the zooms around is so much convenient. So, I haven't used any of my primes since.

In fact, I think I've shot like 20 frames with the 45mm 1.8 since I bought it. I mean, I love how the images look, the bokeh is very nice and creamy, but the zoom stays on most of the time.

I used to shoot with the Panny 20mm f:1.7 a lot, mainly because of the low light capabilities. But the E-M1/E-M10 have improved low light performance so much, compared to my previous camera, the G5, that I feel that I no longer need the primes to shoot at night. I just can imagine how the E-M1 Mark II will be.

So, do you think this is a temporary thing, that eventually I'll find use for the primes again?

Since year end is close, Gas is attacking again, so I'm thinking on retiring them, and get a faster UWA, maybe the 7-14. Or the Oly 8mm f:1.8 so I can use it to take the milky way shots that I've been longing for so long.

Have anyone experienced the same?
Click to expand...
Depends on how you shoot. The new pro zooms are very good, it use to be there was a IQ trade off picking a zoom over a prime. That is no longer the case. I personally like working with primes as long as I have time for what I am shooting. I find I am more creative and think about the shots more. If you have not been using your primes that is probably not a shared feeling. I like zooms for shots that I have a short window to take, or will miss.

So I think for you it would come down to a few things. Size,... a prime is just so much smaller then a pro zoom. If you are always using a larger SLR style m43 body, using a prime might not buy you as much, I use a very small m43 body for portability, so the small primes are a great match. DOF,,,. I shot for many years 35mm film SLR then FF DSLR,,. If you like having the shallow DOF you can get with that setup (when it is needed, not always) a fast prime really gives the m43 system a boost in that area. I wouldn't give up primes on m43 for that reason alone.
 
Last edited:
Not for me. Really depends on what you're shooting. I just find myself in low light situations all the time so I'm always craving for the fastest lenses I can get.
 
After getting the 12-40, I sold the 17 and 25 1.8. I realized I was never going to change a lens just to get 1 stop. (The only prime I'll keep is the FT 50mm macro as a specialty lens.)
 
f3.5-5.6 9-18, f3.5-5.6 12-32, f2.8 12-35, f4-5.6 45-150, f4-5.6 100-300. (In an ideal world, I would sell the last two and get the Panny f2.8 35-100 and Leica 100-400. OR replace the two with the Leica f2.8-4 50-200 if it ever appears.)

The 12-32 and 12-35 account for about 90-95% of my pictures now.

I retain the Oly f1.8 45mm but I don’t use it nearly as much as I should -- the 12-35 produces such excellent images that I tend to leave it on and crop a bit or switch to Ex-Tele which gives me an 8MPX image out of the center of the sensor.

I toy with the idea of selling the 45, but don't; it makes for such a wonderfully compact package for portraiture on either the G6 or the GX7 -- but particularly on the GX7. Being very small and compact, it is non-threatening. I used it just the other day for pictures of my niece .

I sometimes think I should have retained the Panny f2.5 14mm, which I sold after I bought the 12-32. It, too, makes for a wonderfully compact package, producing excellent images, and even at a max of 32mm, it cuts into the use of the 45. But no, the 14 really would not get onto the camera.

I hang onto the 45 though. It was the first lens I bought in m43 beyond the kit 14-45/42 zooms and the 45-200, it provided me with the quality of portrait images I needed to thrill clients, and I know that I can fall back to it for portraiture and some other purposes with confidence.

But in general, changing lenses is so last century! :)
 
Martin Ocando said:
Since year end is close, Gas is attacking again, so I'm thinking on retiring them, and get a faster UWA, maybe the 7-14. Or the Oly 8mm f:1.8 so I can use it to take the milky way shots that I've been longing for so long.
Click to expand...
Since the tax returns are coming on next year, bringing back total of little over 15800€, it will definitely make a serious GAS attacks possible. But already planned to do couple big trips and likely purchase the PEN F just for B/W portraits, I think I am good to stay away from wasting money to anything else.
Martin Ocando said:
Have anyone experienced the same?
Click to expand...
I was fixed focal length believer, until I got my hands on the 12-40 PRO three years ago (even when all the test charts shows it is softer than primes, in reality it is sharper than primes, excluding just couple) and it was a sign to invest to PRO line. Panasonic didn't have such quality and such line for it, as they have their own "Leica" brand line unlike Olympus who has PRO line, and lenses like 12-35 and 35-100 just did not anymore feel m4/3 worthy because being so equal to 24-70 and 70-200 on FF so it was huge pleasure to get worth more in smaller size and weight like 12-40 and 40-150. Then came 7-14 PRO that is like fighting with 12-40 for means as it is sharper and wider and makes funnier things in tight cases.

I have hold my hands off from 8mm f/1.8 just because it is fixed focal length but it is so difficult to look at it and compare it to 7.5mm that is like dream in most cases, but f/1.8 in astrophotography is another case where it would make small difference. In starscapes it doesn't really matter so much as anyways there is so much light in landscape part that exposures becomes just shorter.

But now the olympus 12-100mm PRO zoom sounds again something that I could pick up just to make a room in bag by replacing 12-40mm and 40-150mm in many cases for portraiture.

25mm f/1.2 is in the line, waiting the SMS to be sent so I can test it. But with 99% change I will not buy it after testing, as fixed focal lengths are just so dull and compromised to begin with. For us f/1.2 vs 1.8 or even 2.8 it is no more than 1.15-2,5 stops difference, but for FF that is like 2.3-5 stops difference. But no, I don't need shallower DOF because I am anyways required to stop down to f/5.6-8 to get person in focus from tip of the nose to corner of eye and then already ears are out of focus unrecognizable. So 25mm f/1.2 would just go to be used at f/4-8 range anyways 95% of the times. So actually I think I will just pick 25mm f/1.8 instead f/1.2 and give someone else in the line my lens (there is already over 30 orders, and I am the second one!)

So yes, Olympus zooms did what canon L zooms never could done. They just are as sharp as fixed focal length lenses, far more versatile that there is no changes for even fixed ones to compete and only thing where you pay it is the weight but already 7-14+12-40+40-150 is such a kit that it doesn't need to be smaller or lighter.
 
Last edited:
If you're not using them and not missing them you might as well sell them. I really think it's a matter of individual style and preference. I use the 12-40 on my E-M1 a lot when I'm going out to do photography (that seems like almost never these days). But I often like to stick a small prime on my E-M10 and go small, light, and inconspicuous. I'll also carry that kind of set up (14 f/2.5 or 45 f/1.8, or these days the 12-32 Panasonic pancake) in jacket pockets when I'm doing stuff like skiing. The 12-40 is just too bulky for that kind of duty. And I'd at least occasionally miss the faster apertures. But there certainly is no right answer here.
 
Tommi K1 said:
I was fixed focal length believer, until I got my hands on the 12-40 PRO three years ago (even when all the test charts shows it is softer than primes, in reality it is sharper than primes, excluding just couple) and it was a sign to invest to PRO line. Panasonic didn't have such quality and such line for it, as they have their own "Leica" brand line unlike Olympus who has PRO line, and lenses like 12-35 and 35-100 just did not anymore feel m4/3 worthy because being so equal to 24-70 and 70-200 on FF so it was huge pleasure to get worth more in smaller size and weight like 12-40 and 40-150. Then came 7-14 PRO that is like fighting with 12-40 for means as it is sharper and wider and makes funnier things in tight cases.
Click to expand...
Panasonic designed with size and weight as a concern for their initial f2.8 lenses and it shows. The 12-35 and 35-100 are MUCH smaller and MUCH lighter than Oly's f2.8 zooms, and the 35-100 has an internal zoom, so it doesn't trombone out either. I personally chose the 12-40 and Panny's 35-100 because the size difference of the 40-150 over the 35-100 was just too significant. The 35-100 fits in really any camera bag, and is very lightweight with great IQ. The Oly 40-150 is on another level in terms of size/weight then the panny and requires a bit more commitment out of your camera bag than I was willing to give it.
 
It's ages since I've used primes. :-)

I find F2.8 zooms far better to use. I move into position to choose my perspective and zoom to choose my framing. With primes it tends to be a case of moving into position to choose my perspective, fumble around changing lenses to get the closest to the framing I want and then end up cropping slightly in post.

Since zooms have become so optically good I just find primes overly restrictive for the sole sake of a wider max aperture. And let's face it, you could get the wide aperture effect with a FF sensor and zoom lens, which would seem to be a better option in my mind if you're heavily into the wide aperture look.

I know many people find primes impose a way of 'seeing compositions' due to the fixed focal length... a sort of lens imposed shot discipline... but I just find them annoying and would far rather have total flexibility to compose and frame to suit the subject without constantly needing to think about changing lenses.

Everyone works differently though and It's all just personal preference. Great that m43 seems to be getting more pro zooms AND fast primes to give us that choice.
 
After using several of Olympus top pro level zooms in both 4:3 & m4:3 I cannot understand why some people still handicap themselves with prime lenses. Well actually I can. I love my little 45 1.8, especially for portraits. But the Pro zooms are excellent also. I'm still miffed that Oly decided to make the 300 f4 a prime instead of a 100~300 f/4 zoom. They forced me to buy the P/L 100-400, which is a very good lens, but I'd rather have the f/4 speed at 100-300mm. Then you could put the 1.4 TC on it and get the focal length and still have around a half stop more speed than the 100-400. Phooey.
 
Bobby J said:
After using several of Olympus top pro level zooms in both 4:3 & m4:3 I cannot understand why some people still handicap themselves with prime lenses. Well actually I can. I love my little 45 1.8, especially for portraits. But the Pro zooms are excellent also. I'm still miffed that Oly decided to make the 300 f4 a prime instead of a 100~300 f/4 zoom. They forced me to buy the P/L 100-400, which is a very good lens, but I'd rather have the f/4 speed at 100-300mm. Then you could put the 1.4 TC on it and get the focal length and still have around a half stop more speed than the 100-400. Phooey.
Click to expand...
 
Martin Ocando said:
Rssrsvp said:
Why don't you simply leave the Panny 20mm f:1.7 mounted on the E-M10 and designate it as your nighttime camera. It should be small enough to slip in a jacket pocket or if you wear cargo pants one of the side pockets.
Click to expand...
That's a good idea too. Maybe I can build 2 kits, my family, street and nighttime kit, with the E-M10 + 45, the 20 and 9-18mm, and the Pro kit, with the E-M1 + 12-40 and 35-100
Click to expand...
If I owned a second body like you do I would definitely consider doing this. As it stands now when I want to go out in the evening and need a camera I have to return home first and remove my 12-40 Pro from my E-M5 M ll and mount the 17mm f1.8. Sometimes I am really rushed, can't get home and just use my iPhone and then regret it later on. If I had the option of a smaller and lighter body like the E-M10 and a small prime I would simply take it with me in the morning and I will be good to go!
 
Right there with you Martin. Never thought it would happen but I went from shooting primarily with primes for three plus years to shooting mostly with the same fast zooms you have. I eventually sold off all of the fast primes, keeping only my dedicated macro. I went from four primes and one slow telecom to two fast zooms and a macro prime. Though in full disclosure my Panny 20 got sold off only when I bought a Fuji x100T.
 
Considering how much use they get relatively, I should sell most of the primes, though they do get out occasionally. Most of the time the Panasonic 12-35 & 35-100 f2.8 zooms do the job, or else the 12-32 on the GM5 for a low visual profile. The Panasonic f2.8s are usefully smaller, lighter and less eye-catching than the Olympus equivalents, especially the 40-150.

IQ is perhaps a tad better with say the 75 f1.8 and lower ISO, but changing lenses at crowded venues is a PITA, and can mean missing many shots.

If you can move around easily then primes are fine, but when this is impossible zooms rule.
 
Photo Pete said:
Bobby J said:
After using several of Olympus top pro level zooms in both 4:3 & m4:3 I cannot understand why some people still handicap themselves with prime lenses. Well actually I can. I love my little 45 1.8, especially for portraits. But the Pro zooms are excellent also. I'm still miffed that Oly decided to make the 300 f4 a prime instead of a 100~300 f/4 zoom. They forced me to buy the P/L 100-400, which is a very good lens, but I'd rather have the f/4 speed at 100-300mm. Then you could put the 1.4 TC on it and get the focal length and still have around a half stop more speed than the 100-400. Phooey.

--
BJM
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts on the 300 f4. If it were a 100-300f4 Olympus would have had my money by now.

--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Click to expand...
If Olympus comes out with a good 2x TC as patented, I will get it to turn 40-150 f/2.8 to 80-300mm f/5.6. for daylight use or stationary targets (shutter speed limited,).

But I vote a something zoom starting from a 150mm and ending between 400-500mm now.

I don't see a need for a Pro zoom that is something between 12-100 f/4 and 300mm f/4 as there is already 56-210mm f/4. But zoom to be at 300mm range it being between, it would be something! Carry 40-150 and new zoom and everything is in your reach.
 
At least that is what I've found in my practice. Zooms are very reactive tools, I find I zoom in, zoom out depending on the situation. For me, there is very little contemplative thought involved, it is all very emotionally reactive and I've done some very good work this way.

But with primes, I take a bit more time in thinking about what it is I want to do. The first obstacle is one of two questions, 1) "Do I really want to go to the trouble of changing the lens to get this shot? or 2) Can I make the shot I need to take with the lens I already have attached? Thoughtful and artistic lethargy seems to be an important part of my prime lens use, and I think I've done some very good work this way.

I guess my point is, Zooms and Primes have turned into two very different kinds of optical tools, and I think both are needed for a complete 'toolbox'. I don't see how some people who claim to use only one or the other can get by without going crazy!

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
Glen Barrington said:
At least that is what I've found in my practice. Zooms are very reactive tools, I find I zoom in, zoom out depending on the situation. For me, there is very little contemplative thought involved, it is all very emotionally reactive and I've done some very good work this way.

But with primes, I take a bit more time in thinking about what it is I want to do. The first obstacle is one of two questions, 1) "Do I really want to go to the trouble of changing the lens to get this shot? or 2) Can I make the shot I need to take with the lens I already have attached? Thoughtful and artistic lethargy seems to be an important part of my prime lens use, and I think I've done some very good work this way.

I guess my point is, Zooms and Primes have turned into two very different kinds of optical tools, and I think both are needed for a complete 'toolbox'. I don't see how some people who claim to use only one or the other can get by without going crazy!
Click to expand...
Hi Glen,

I was almost exclusively a prime shooter in the Olympus OM system. To be honest, the OM zooms of the 70s and 80s were nothing to write home about. Then I switched to Canon in 1991 for the AF, and I went almost exclusively zoom, including a bit of L glass. My only primes in that system were a 100mm f/2 and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. The same situation applied with my switch to digital in 2004 with Olympus again; exclusively zooms plus the 8mm f/3.5 fisheye.

I picked up µ4/3 in 2011 and went with primes exclusively. I found in 2011/2012 that the only zooms available, consumer grade and kit zooms, were really rather poor compared to the excellent ZD zooms of the 4/3 system. The 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.4, and 45mm f/1.8 were soooo much better than available zooms that I became a prime shooter again. Having a fast aperture available as needed did not hurt the situation either! I remain there, mostly, today. My only zoom is a 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO that I got such a good deal on that I could not pass it up. Even now, I use my 75mm f/1.8 more often than that zoom.

The way I keep from going crazy is the personal rationalization that I don't need to photograph everything everyday. I'm content to seek a good photo with the camera + prime that I have at hand; I rarely carry a second lens when I'm walking about. If I come home empty-handed after a walk with my camera, well, it was a nice walk. :-)

I now have lust for the 25mm f/1.2 and, unexpectedly, the 12-100mm f/4. We'll see where that lust takes me. :-)


Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Life is good in the woods
 
When I am up to something, I don't even raise camera but I first spot what is interesting that I see, then what is surroundings as they rule what are my options for background and foreground, to add something or remove something and then I previsualize the shot for size of a print and is with colors or black and white and do I use shallow DOF or do I go to deep focus.

At that point I have found my liking for perspective and angle and then I only need to raise camera to frame the shot and take couple extras with wider as narrower field from each interesting perspective.

That is how I am not limited by the focal length but by the zoom range I have with me.

And Trinity (7-150mm) does lots of things without being my way or limiting my capabilities as two bodies makes it easy just to go from a one view to another, usually 7-14+40-150 or 12-40+40-150.

It is just so nice to have so large zoom range in so small package that you can just walk around without really noticing you have the camera with you. In events it is great benefit to be able expect the moment and either take from distance if no time or no disturbing and then just take wide and get close with 7-14mm to get on the skin.

With a fixed focal lengths it is nearly impossible and just need to like that you can get.
 
I just dumped nearly all my Olympus primes and slower zooms on Amazon.com.

Primes were not useless, but they taught me how to shoot the zooms with more discipline, and showed me that wide aperture isn't what I need most of the time. What I really needed was quicker operation in real practice, and I was getting that more consistently with the zooms and their more flexible capabilities.

Down to just 3 lenses now in normal use.

7-14mm f2.8, 12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f2.8--sometimes with the teleconverter.

My 12-40mm f2.8 is:
  • Nearly as high resolution as the primes at 2.8, sometimes better.
  • Color and contrast are very close to the primes.
  • Much higher magnification besides the dedicated macros.
  • Slightly better at autofocus--a bit faster.
  • Way more convenient for video with the manual clutch.
  • Can get an establishing wide angle shot, and move into a close up in seconds instead of changing cameras or lenses, when trying to shoot a video, or photographic essay.
  • More than sufficient shallow DoF for occasional portraits to my tastes @40mm f2.8, which lets me get both eyes in focus, at a slight angle to the side.
  • Covers nearly all my well lit shooting requirements.
  • Is flexible and fast to keep up with snapping all my run and gun vacation shots; asking the family to wait while I take additional time to compose gets really dirty looks.
The 7-14mm f2.8 and 40-150mm f2.8 is cover similar points as well. 7-14mm f2.8 I use mostly for HDR landscapes. The 40-150mm f2.8 is my portrait shooter that doubles as a wildlife lens with the teleconverter in a pinch.

The only prime I have left is the 60mm f2.8 macro, which I use for work, taking images of extreme product close-ups when needed.

I plan to only add one more prime. I have a 25mm f1.2 on order to use as part of a two camera system at night, or for shallow DoF fun. That should complete my kit for all intents and purposes for as long as I can see into the future. Might rent some other lenses as I need them, like the 300mm F4.
 
ediblestarfish said:
I just dumped nearly all my Olympus primes and slower zooms on Amazon.com.

Primes were not useless, but they taught me how to shoot the zooms with more discipline, and showed me that wide aperture isn't what I need most of the time. What I really needed was quicker operation in real practice, and I was getting that more consistently with the zooms and their more flexible capabilities.

Down to just 3 lenses now in normal use.

7-14mm f2.8, 12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f2.8--sometimes with the teleconverter.
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of having the "Holy Trinity" of zooms! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top