Reading mode: Light Dark

Question on lenses for EM1.2

Go to last post
JoeMoMo

JoeMoMo

Well-known member
Messages
231
Solutions
1
Reaction score
91
Location
US
Hey gang,

I think I've made up my mind to upgrade from the EM1.1 to the EM1.2 and stay in the m4/3s camp. I admit, I was tempted by the A6500 and the A7Rii.

So, now that I've decided to stay, I'm thinking about what to do with my lenses. I know my Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 will work on the new body but curious if there's anything I will miss out on by not selling those and upgrading to native equivalents? It looks like I can get $300 off the 12-40mm f/2.8 and $200 off the 40-150mm f/2.8 when buying with the EM1.2 body thru B&H.

I was also contemplating selling off both lenses and consolidating to the 12-100mm f/4 and the 25mm f/1.2 as my low light lens, sadly no discounts on those lenses.

I know most may say why go from f/2.8 to an f/4 anything, which is why I would get the 25mm f/1.2. I looked at LR today and noticed that the majority of my photos were captured with the 12-35mm, no surprise there but when diving deeper, a significant chunk were captured right at 12mm (sign of laziness) with the rest occurring somewhere between 17mm and 27mm. On the telephoto side, I'm pretty heavily stacked between 75mm and 100mm, with a lot occurring at 100mm for reach (dance recitals, sports, zoo, etc.).

Given the above, another combination I might consider is the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 25 f/1.2. Having a 300mm FF equivalent at f/2.8 would be pretty nice.

Appreciate the advice of saner minds ;-)
 
JoeMoMo said:
Hey gang,

I think I've made up my mind to upgrade from the EM1.1 to the EM1.2 and stay in the m4/3s camp. I admit, I was tempted by the A6500 and the A7Rii.

So, now that I've decided to stay, I'm thinking about what to do with my lenses. I know my Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 will work on the new body but curious if there's anything I will miss out on by not selling those and upgrading to native equivalents? It looks like I can get $300 off the 12-40mm f/2.8 and $200 off the 40-150mm f/2.8 when buying with the EM1.2 body thru B&H.

I was also contemplating selling off both lenses and consolidating to the 12-100mm f/4 and the 25mm f/1.2 as my low light lens, sadly no discounts on those lenses.

I know most may say why go from f/2.8 to an f/4 anything, which is why I would get the 25mm f/1.2. I looked at LR today and noticed that the majority of my photos were captured with the 12-35mm, no surprise there but when diving deeper, a significant chunk were captured right at 12mm (sign of laziness) with the rest occurring somewhere between 17mm and 27mm. On the telephoto side, I'm pretty heavily stacked between 75mm and 100mm, with a lot occurring at 100mm for reach (dance recitals, sports, zoo, etc.).

Given the above, another combination I might consider is the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 25 f/1.2. Having a 300mm FF equivalent at f/2.8 would be pretty nice.
Click to expand...
As an E-M1 owner the 40-150 Pro my most-used lens, foremost for soccer but also portraits, landscape, etc. I would consider it a significant step up from the 35-100, not only for the added reach but also the dazzling AF and very close focus. The MC14 option allows further customization for a tiny spot in your gear bag. Pro Capture, focus bracketing are M1.2 features it unlocks, essential tools for many.

The gap down to 25mm is pretty significant but the leap to f:1.2 would be its own reward because sometimes aperture is a limiting factor shooting zooms. Since you shoot lots at 12mm that leaves a hole in your kit, but keeping the 12-35 fills it nicely. Or perhaps one of the 12mm primes, either the 2.0 or 1.4.

We have a LOT of lenses to choose among so your confusion is understandable. It's not often we completely churn our systems and it wasn't always this complicated.

Cheers,

Rick
 
JoeMoMo said:
I was also contemplating selling off both lenses and consolidating to the 12-100mm f/4 and the 25mm f/1.2 as my low light lens, sadly no discounts on those lenses.

I know most may say why go from f/2.8 to an f/4 anything, which is why I would get the 25mm f/1.2
Click to expand...
As you'll see in my signature line, that's the combo I use. Rationale:

1. I enjoy travel and street photography. When I had the Lumix 12-35/35-100 f/2.8 combo, most of my shots were with the former, because I didn't always get the chance (and sometimes couldn't be bothered) to switch lenses. There were many situations where it was easier to shoot at 35mm and crop a little if necessary

2. Don't worry about the 12-100's f/4 maximum aperture. High ISO performance on the E-M1 mk2 is maybe 1.5 stops better than on its predecessor and focusing is much improved, so the only time wide apertures really count is narrow DoF/nice bokeh - and you'll have the 25 f/1.2 for that

3. Talking of which, the 25 is a lovely lens. Great bokeh, really nice colour rendition and micro-contrast

4. I find it an excellent two-lens, one-body system, all items built to a high standard, weather-sealed, consistent in handling and feel and, between the lenses, in image characteristics (I find Olympus lenses cooler in colours, lower-contrast but higher micro-contrast than the warmer, contrastier Lumix rendition).
 
JoeMoMo said:
Hey gang,

I think I've made up my mind to upgrade from the EM1.1 to the EM1.2 and stay in the m4/3s camp. I admit, I was tempted by the A6500 and the A7Rii.
Click to expand...
I traded my EM1 for the EM1ii, so pleased with it (performance and ergonomics) that I'm sorely tempted to replace my EM5ii with a second EM1ii, because I sometimes like to carry 2 cameras with 2 different lenses, and there are advantages to having exactly the same interface using the same muscle memory.

For now and for the foreseeable future, only one system is all I need. μ4/3 is up to the task for probably 97% of what I'm interested in ever doing, and for that other 3% I rather like the challenge of figuring out how to make do with what I have, than the significantly extra cost, weight, and bulk of a larger format system - and frankly, if I could ever justify that at all I might buy so-called "medium format".
JoeMoMo said:
So, now that I've decided to stay, I'm thinking about what to do with my lenses. I know my Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 will work on the new body but curious if there's anything I will miss out on by not selling those and upgrading to native equivalents? It looks like I can get $300 off the 12-40mm f/2.8 and $200 off the 40-150mm f/2.8 when buying with the EM1.2 body thru B&H.
Click to expand...
If budget is not a problem, that would certainly be one direction to go. However, I might question if there are any particular shortcomings you are experiencing right now, which you would hope to address with the Oly lenses? The reasons I can think of would be closer focusing, the manual focus ring (which I find quite useful), the stronger UV coatings on the Oly lenses (with the weaker UV filtering on the Oly sensors), and any noted improvements in IQ under some settings which you may be aware of. And 50% greater reach of the 40-150.

They are larger, heavier lenses, and some consider the 40-150 bokeh to be a bit more nervous than that of the 35-100. Every lens has its own set of characteristics and compromises, so you would need to research online examples and decide what's best for you.
JoeMoMo said:
I was also contemplating selling off both lenses and consolidating to the 12-100mm f/4 and the 25mm f/1.2 as my low light lens, sadly no discounts on those lenses.
Click to expand...
Well, I bought the 12-100mm along with the EM1ii about a month ago ($200 off of each, and decent trade-in at my local dealer), and loving this combo greatly. I traded my PL 25mm f/1.4 to help finance it, as I just never used it any more (it was my first μ4/3 native prime lens). I do use my O 17mm f/1.8 however -- historically, this and the EFOV (equivalent field of view) of the 45mm (or 42.5 mm) are my most used FOV for travel and general shooting, so I will be quite interested to see if Oly make a new 17mm PRO anytime soon.

I kept my O 12-40mm, not enough value for me to give up having it as a smaller, lighter, alternative at least for now.
JoeMoMo said:
I know most may say why go from f/2.8 to an f/4 anything, which is why I would get the 25mm f/1.2. I looked at LR today and noticed that the majority of my photos were captured with the 12-35mm, no surprise there but when diving deeper, a significant chunk were captured right at 12mm (sign of laziness) with the rest occurring somewhere between 17mm and 27mm. On the telephoto side, I'm pretty heavily stacked between 75mm and 100mm, with a lot occurring at 100mm for reach (dance recitals, sports, zoo, etc.).
Click to expand...
When I took my last trip to Japan in October-November last year, I had the 12-40mm, 7-14mm f/2.8, 17mm f/1.8, and 14-150mm Mark II with me. Now, I can clearly see that the 12-100 could have easily replaced the 12-40 + 14-150, and even the in-camera 2x TC function would have given me better quality (and more reach) at the 12-100's max zoom than "no digital TC" with the 14-150 at max zoom, and I could have easily done without the extra stop of the 12-40 in virtually every case.
JoeMoMo said:
Given the above, another combination I might consider is the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 25 f/1.2. Having a 300mm FF equivalent at f/2.8 would be pretty nice.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's another option, sure keep the P 12-35mm -- and some day, you can add the 1.4x TC for "420mm EFOV" reach. A lot of good choices!
JoeMoMo said:
Appreciate the advice of saner minds ;-)
Click to expand...
I don't resemble that 👀 remark so much... 😜

Good Luck!

--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas
http://www.pbase.com/3dwag/image/97156660.jpg
 
Last edited:
You said that "a significant chunk were captured right at 12mm", so your last alternative might not be a good choice.
 
JoeMoMo said:
Hey gang,

I think I've made up my mind to upgrade from the EM1.1 to the EM1.2 and stay in the m4/3s camp. I admit, I was tempted by the A6500 and the A7Rii.

So, now that I've decided to stay, I'm thinking about what to do with my lenses. I know my Panny 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 will work on the new body but curious if there's anything I will miss out on by not selling those and upgrading to native equivalents?
Click to expand...
Probably not.

You could trade those two lenses in for the 12-100 and take advantage of Sync IS. As you already realize, you'll probably want a fast lens to pair with it.

Unless you really need f/1.2, I'd go with one of the many excellent f/1.8 25mm primes. That's still faster than what you currently use now.
 
The 40-150 is just 50% longer than 100mm, and thats not really that much IMO. I tried shooting my 40-150 @ 100mm for a while when the 12-100 came out. I did mostly shoot the 40-150 @ 150mm when I bothered to bring it with me, but it was often replaced by the 75mm. The 40-150 is on the large and heavy side for me, and it can have nervous bokeh.

Anyway, I sold my pro zooms++ and bought the 12-100 and 25 1.2. What a combo! I do find 25mm FL as versatile for a prime as a 12-100 is a versitile zoom range, so that helps 😊. The 25 is just a perfect lens and Ive never enjoyed a zoom as much as the 12-100. Now Im only waiting for the 17 1.2 as I miss my Voigtlander that I never should have sold..

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
RSColo said:
You said that "a significant chunk were captured right at 12mm", so your last alternative might not be a good choice.
Click to expand...
 
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