-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Olympus PRO vs. regular lenses
- Thread starter solitone
- Start date
Just read all the posts - I see you want a kit for hiking. In that case - based n weight, and performance -
Get - in order the
14-150 ii
12-100
12-200
The 12-100 is best optically, but a bit heavy for hiking. The 14-150 ii is still quite good. Again, the extra spacing is intentional. The 12-200 only if longer reach is needed.
Peace.
John
Last edited:
solitone
Well-known member
It’s about 2K€ (about 2K$).
A used E-M1 Mark III with a used Oly 14-150 would be around 1.200-1.300 €.
Last edited:
solitone
Well-known member
HHHR and Live ND would work also in combination with a different lens, though, like Oly 14-150 II or Panasonic 14-140 II, right?
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
I think that the real downside is that the lens is unnecessary slow at the wide end. The 150-400mm f/4.5 being a good example of this
novalaker
Forum Enthusiast
The 12-100 is one of the biggest selling points of M43 in my opinion. You will be hard pressed to find another lens that combines sharpness, zoom range, weather sealing, OIS, durability, constant aperture, and price. The closest example in another system is the Tamron 35-150, which is a smaller zoom range, albeit much faster, and twice the price and twice the weight. If you can afford it and if you can handle the size (again it's not very big at all relative to FF but for some M43 users it's too big), it is an excellent purchase and even better for an Olympus body. I use it on the G9 with just OIS and it's still excellent. Strongly considering getting an OM-1 though to take advantage of this great dual IS and faster AF.
--
Website: nickcarneyphotography.com
IG: @nickcarneyphotography
Social Enterprise: envisionrwanda.com
Last edited:
novalaker
Forum Enthusiast
How often do you hike or backpack? I get that it's heavier, but if you're someone who seriously hikes, I don't think the extra weight will bother you too much. I'm not an endurance athlete, in fact I'm asthmatic and live at high altitude. But the difference between the Lumix 14-140 and the Olympus 12-100 was not something that I really noticed over time. In fact it saved me from bringing a prime because I can just use the 12-100 for anything, even the stray portrait of friends hiking. I even took it gorilla trekking recently, check out my site if you wanna see some results.
Bulk is as important as weight when hiking, at least when you are fit enough. The way you are going to carry the camera i also a factor.
i hike with the em1-ii +12-100 in a 22l mountaineering backpack. I prefer to carry the camera inside the backpack and not on a belt clip or camera sling. In the backpack, the weight difference is not that important.
Packing volume is also related to the camera bag. I use neoprene covers and no camera bag while hiking to reduce bulk and pack carefully using a jacket for for more protection.
it took me 8 years to get some cracks in my em5, it is still working and switched to the em1-ii.
For overnight trips, when there is more to carry i switch to my 12 and or 45 mm primes or skip camera gear and use my phone.
Steven
i hike with the em1-ii +12-100 in a 22l mountaineering backpack. I prefer to carry the camera inside the backpack and not on a belt clip or camera sling. In the backpack, the weight difference is not that important.
Packing volume is also related to the camera bag. I use neoprene covers and no camera bag while hiking to reduce bulk and pack carefully using a jacket for for more protection.
it took me 8 years to get some cracks in my em5, it is still working and switched to the em1-ii.
For overnight trips, when there is more to carry i switch to my 12 and or 45 mm primes or skip camera gear and use my phone.
Steven
D
David
Guest
First and foremost, what are you expectations in terms of needed reach for your hikes? Will 100mm (200mm 35equivalent) be enough of a reach for you, or will 140-150mm be enough or else 200mm be enough?
100mm is considered just fine for sports, but too short for any wildlife shots or distance shots. 140-150mm is more ideal for larger wildlife shots and distance shots and 200mm is more ideal for medium wildlife shots and 400mm is more ideal for smaller wildlife shots.
Too often, people go for the shorter focal length, because they think a PRO lens will do everything. Well, a PRO lens can be sharper and faster than a consumer lens, but a shorter reach means you need to crop the image. Cropping the image will in the end rob you the detail and clarity, because you need to resize it back to native size. So that’s why we have PRO zooms such as the 40-150 f/2.8 if you need the 150mm reach or the 150-450 Pro lens if you need longer than 100mm reach. Both of them provide native reach and high resolution without needing to crop your shots.
So what are your expectations that you plan to shoot on your hikes? You didn’t provide those information to us, so it is very difficult to tell you which lens suits you.
For example, I shoot landscape and some large body wildlife such as a bear, with an emphasis of ultra wide and I carry the 7-14 f/2.8 Pro lens simply because, it’s sharp and fast, but it is known to be a heavy BRICK. I carry it, because it gives me that quality I need in my landscape shots that the 9-18 consumers lens could not give me and nor my 7.5mm fisheye I have and the weight of a brick is simply a consequence of needing that quality. And you will quickly notice it after a long 2 to 4 hr hike ascend up a hill! I started with a 7.5mm and upgraded to the 7-14mm PRO. As a short of compromise, I carried the 25mm Prime and the 35-100mm f/2.8. But I’m 50mm short from my 35-100mm f/2.8 and so, to mitigate that, I started carrying my Panasonic ZS-100 which gives me a max zoom of 250mm, which is perfect for that long landscape shots and the quality from my 1” sensor camera is more or less similar that what I get from my E-M5 Mark II anyhow. Even with 250mm, I still find it a bit short and the lens quality off the 1” camera isn’t great for larger prints. So now I’m mulling over either a 100-400 Oly or Pana Leica. As you can see from my progression to longer and better lenses; it’s coming from shooting experience and a valid need for a particular PRO lens and reach after using a consumer grade lens.
My combined combo camera and lens setup will deliver me a minimum of 16x20 prints and 20x30 prints would not be a problem as well. So I go with the PRO lens, because I may need to print BIG. But if your needs is simply to share your photos on social media and you don’t pixel peep like 400% to look for sharpness, then why would you need a PRO lens when a consumer lens with a longer reach such as the 14-150 or the 12-200 will fine for you for smaller prints or showing on a phone screen?
It’s all about what is your expectations. Price is simply to address those expectations, which is why I myself don’t talk about price. If I need equipment to produce large prints, then I have to pay MORE to get that equipment to do its job. Why buy more when you can get by with less.
What lens combination will get you out MORE to shoot? That’s important. Price and weight are inconsequential, because there is no point in getting a superior PRO lens when it ends up sitting on the shelf or in your bag most of the time, because it doesn’t fulfill your needs more so than a longer reach consumer lens with less than superior optical quality to a PRO lens.
If you look at my lens collection, I have a decent collection of PRO and consumer lenses, but I use them all most of the time. They never sit in the bag. They get used. If you have lenses that mostly sit in the bag or in the shelf, what good is it if it’s a PRO lens with superior lens qualities, but sits mostly unused?
This is my 2 cents..
Last edited:
solitone
Well-known member
I would say I'm pretty fit, and true, the higher weight wouldn't probably be so bad when day hiking.
Still I believe it would instead be noticeable when backpacking. Every kilo counts when walking tens of miles in the alpine, even with a base weight of just 7-8 kg, plus food for 3 days, plus some water.
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
Yes, any system lens should work for these two features. Starry Sky focus as well.
In-camera focus stacking and Pro Capture (in case you wish to do some birding) have more limited lens compatibility lists--all Olympus.
HTH
Rick
solitone
Well-known member
If I remember it right, focus stacking isn't available on E-M1 Mark III, is it?
As for Pro Capture, I can't remember...
Anyhow, even consumer Olympus lenses support such features?
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
Yes, both features, going back to the E-M1ii, and focus stacking to the original E-M1 (via FW update).
Cheers,
Rick
Good points Jack.
I prefer to put the extra money into lenses instead of an upgraded body.
I will need to replace my M-10 II some day, but I get wonderful results with pro lenses mounted.
DLBlack
Forum Pro
I do own the 12-100/4.0 lens and have done backpacking with it and one of the E-M1 series cameras. It is a great camera-lens combo. I did own the 14-150 lens and never really liked it and gave it to my wife who has lost it.
My hiking overnight backpacking kit is now the OM-1 with the 12-45/4.0 and the 40-150/4.0. Plus, maybe the 20/1.4 lens for around the campfire. The 100mm at the long end just wasn't long enough.
There are a lot of good choices.
My hiking overnight backpacking kit is now the OM-1 with the 12-45/4.0 and the 40-150/4.0. Plus, maybe the 20/1.4 lens for around the campfire. The 100mm at the long end just wasn't long enough.
There are a lot of good choices.
Nacha
Leading Member
my 2cents here. i just went through this thought exercise in reverse to cull lenses from my possession, since i have all of them, which are too many for me.
if i were starting out, i would buy the 12-200mm. my reasons are these:
i prefer 12mm vs 14mm at the wide end
the 200mm vs 150 is important in certain situations, and the quality of the 12-200 vs 14-150 is similar
the results you get from the 12-200 will be very good, and you will be happy, especially since you don't have the 12-100 to compare it to.
the 12-200 can be had used for much less money than the 12-100
unless you plan to use lens specific features ,ie focus stacking, then you need to get the 12-100
there is always something better. if you are a little naive, then you can be satisfied with stuff that is very good, but not necessarily the best. camera gear is a rabbit hole waiting to suck you down.
Buy the deal and add a used 14-150? Then you can choose per trip without losing the benefits of the EM1.3 plus 12-100.
I upgraded my EM1.2 to an OM1 but kept the EM1.1 for when light is my essential requirement. Have the 12-32 and 35-100 kits, plus 10/2, 20/1.7 and the light, larger but very capable PL25/1.4. My casual kit is EM1.1 with 10/2 and 25/1.4, very casual kit is orange GM1 with 12-32 in its hard case.
Used EM1.1s are pretty cheap - no reason to trade mine in and it's still a very usable camera. I have lots of shots of the grand baby already with the EM1.1 and PL25/1.4 and the lens only arrived 2 months ago.
See, this line of thinking leads to a gear list like mine, acquired mostly as used, grey market, and new at offer prices.
Andrew
solitone
Well-known member
Funnily enough, I've found a brand new 12-200 costing 10% less than a new 14-150. How can it be? Model number is V316030BW000. Is there something wrong with that?
novalaker
Forum Enthusiast
Fair enough. Then I think you just need to decide if you value the weight/size or the image quality. It should also be noted that you lose 2mm on the wide end which can be significant depending on what you're shooting. But obviously gaining 50mm on the long-end will likely be more valuable for most people. I shot on the 14-140 for a couple of years and I'll just say that I would love to go back in time and take the same shots I did with the 12-100. My landscape shots now are significantly better, IMO. I don't really need to pixel peep to see the extra sharpness and detail. But I'm someone who prints a decent amount, so if you don't then perhaps you'd be better off saving some grams in your bag and dollars in your pocket. That deal sounds pretty sweet though.
Nacha
Leading Member
I would look at the seller. Is it from a reliable source with a reasonable return policy? If so, i would consider the purchase if that is the lens you chose
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum