M43 Kit Advice

m43_photo said:

Thanks to everyone for the insights and support so far.

My OM-1 Mark II arrived today along with the 12–40mm f/2.8 PRO, both from B&H — and what a beauty this camera is! As always, B&H delivered with excellent service.

I’m still leaning toward the 40–150mm f/2.8 PRO as my telephoto option — the combination of speed and flexibility is compelling. Especially, for indoors use...

That said, I’m now trying to do a bit more research and I’d really appreciate suggestions for credible, thoughtful M43 sources (sites, blogs, YouTube channels, etc.) that provide solid evaluations of lenses (and cameras). There seems to be a lot of superficial or clickbait content out there. I'm looking for the good stuff. I remember years ago watching the late David Thorpe, who was absolutely marvelous.

Any recommendations?

Click to expand...

If this is about the 40-150/2.8, mine performs exactly like the Lenstip evaluation. It’s best at 150mm, like the 12-40mm is best at 12mm.

Gordon Laing is pretty good at reviewing kit.

If it’s about other lenses, then ask here.













A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

For technical test-reviews Lenstip has a deep catalog and the ability to compare lenses knowing their approach doesn't vary (other than the camera;s MP count, which affects the MTF values).


Imaging Resource is another long-term testing-review site.


HTH

Rick

I have both the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8. I would imagine that for a lot of people, myself included, 90% of their photographic needs can be satisfied using these two lenses alone. I believe both of these lenses are the pinnacle of zoom lenses on any format.

I don't have anything wider than the 12-40. On the occasions when I need to go significantly wider, I'll do a two image horizontal panorama, or a multiple image vertical panorama.

A brief aside if I may... a comment was made about the 40-150 not being the best at portraits. I would dispute this, and would draw your attention to Kirk Tuck and his blog at VSL. While using micro four thirds he had this lens, and praised it as the one of the best arguments for micro four thirds, and he does a lot of jobs as a portrait photographer.

If you want primes, and have the budget, the Olympus 1.2 primes are excellent. I've not heard a single bad comment about the 12-100 f4 either, and this lens and a body makes for an excellent travel system.

One of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that the lens eco system is very broad, and very complete, and supported by a range of third party manufacturers.

cathal gantly said:

I have both the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8. I would imagine that for a lot of people, myself included, 90% of their photographic needs can be satisfied using these two lenses alone. I believe both of these lenses are the pinnacle of zoom lenses on any format.

I don't have anything wider than the 12-40. On the occasions when I need to go significantly wider, I'll do a two image horizontal panorama, or a multiple image vertical panorama.

A brief aside if I may... a comment was made about the 40-150 not being the best at portraits. I would dispute this, and would draw your attention to Kirk Tuck and his blog at VSL. While using micro four thirds he had this lens, and praised it as the one of the best arguments for micro four thirds, and he does a lot of jobs as a portrait photographer.

If you want primes, and have the budget, the Olympus 1.2 primes are excellent. I've not heard a single bad comment about the 12-100 f4 either, and this lens and a body makes for an excellent travel system.

One of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that the lens eco system is very broad, and very complete, and supported by a range of third party manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Many thanks! So far, the firm decisions are the 12–40mm Pro (which came with the camera) and the 40–150mm f/2.8, which I’ve ordered from B&H—arriving tomorrow.

You're right: these two will cover 90% of my photography.

I've also ordered the new 100–400mm (version II) for a first attempt at wildlife. B&H expects delivery by the end of the month.

As for primes, I’m considering either the OM 20mm f/1.4 or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4—leaning towards the former.

Thanks again to all!

cathal gantly said:

I have both the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8. I would imagine that for a lot of people, myself included, 90% of their photographic needs can be satisfied using these two lenses alone.

Click to expand...

Yes, but… I prefer having UWA options to having to stitch scenes with movement.

cathal gantly said:

I believe both of these lenses are the pinnacle of zoom lenses on any format.

Click to expand...

You can’t be serious? They are good lenses, but certainly not a pinnacle.

cathal gantly said:

I don't have anything wider than the 12-40. On the occasions when I need to go significantly wider, I'll do a two image horizontal panorama, or a multiple image vertical panorama.

A brief aside if I may... a comment was made about the 40-150 not being the best at portraits. I would dispute this, and would draw your attention to Kirk Tuck and his blog at VSL. While using micro four thirds he had this lens, and praised it as the one of the best arguments for micro four thirds, and he does a lot of jobs as a portrait photographer.

Click to expand...

It’s a very handy lens, part of the reason I bought it rather than the f4 or the 35-100/2.8 mk ii. Absolutely no regrets.

cathal gantly said:

If you want primes, and have the budget, the Olympus 1.2 primes are excellent. I've not heard a single bad comment about the 12-100 f4 either, and this lens and a body makes for an excellent travel system.

Click to expand...

The 12-100/4 is rather heavy on the body and has no foot to attach a strap to. I find the pair of f2.8 zooms suit me better. The 12-100/4 is a decent super zoom but still not quite up with lower ratio zooms at f4. We are all different of course, so I can see it is a useful part of the offer.

cathal gantly said:

One of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that the lens eco system is very broad, and very complete, and supported by a range of third party manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Certainly very broad but 3rd party competition is not strong compared to E or L mounts. Good to see OM updating primes with WR. What MFT has is a unique catalog. You don’t get good f5.6 or f8 FF zooms, and it has the small sensor low light AF advantage. The QBPDAF array in the OM1/OM3 is really good in low light. Not as good as QB phones, but still pretty amazing.

Mistakes like the f1.2 Olympus primes didn’t help their business. It will be interesting to see if OM issue OM branded versions once the stock is finally gone. Hopefully OM will be able to invest in tele lens design to reduce size and weight. Maybe the new tele will do that.

A

m43_photo said:

cathal gantly said:

I have both the 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8. I would imagine that for a lot of people, myself included, 90% of their photographic needs can be satisfied using these two lenses alone. I believe both of these lenses are the pinnacle of zoom lenses on any format.

I don't have anything wider than the 12-40. On the occasions when I need to go significantly wider, I'll do a two image horizontal panorama, or a multiple image vertical panorama.

A brief aside if I may... a comment was made about the 40-150 not being the best at portraits. I would dispute this, and would draw your attention to Kirk Tuck and his blog at VSL. While using micro four thirds he had this lens, and praised it as the one of the best arguments for micro four thirds, and he does a lot of jobs as a portrait photographer.

If you want primes, and have the budget, the Olympus 1.2 primes are excellent. I've not heard a single bad comment about the 12-100 f4 either, and this lens and a body makes for an excellent travel system.

One of the advantages of the micro four thirds system is that the lens eco system is very broad, and very complete, and supported by a range of third party manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Many thanks! So far, the firm decisions are the 12–40mm Pro (which came with the camera) and the 40–150mm f/2.8, which I’ve ordered from B&H—arriving tomorrow.

You're right: these two will cover 90% of my photography.

I've also ordered the new 100–400mm (version II) for a first attempt at wildlife. B&H expects delivery by the end of the month.

As for primes, I’m considering either the OM 20mm f/1.4 or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4—leaning towards the former.

Thanks again to all!

Click to expand...

I thought about the 20/1.4 as a partner to the 20/1.7. WR and fast AF, what could go wrong. Looking at sample images, it has quite a lot of SA and LoCA. Isolating a person in a landscape with it can leave odd halos (from the SA) on the horizon, and fringes on OOF elements (from the LoCA). That would be an issue for my uses.

If you isolate your subject a lot and fill the frame with them, what you get is mostly smooth background bokeh (from the SA). That works well - have a look at MEDISN’s reports and shots of his daughters. You can see LoCA in some of them, but he is pretty skilled at composition, so it is modest.

The PL 25/1.4 also has some LoCA and SA, but less than the OM 20/1.4. The mk ii version is also WR and has faster AF than the mk i version. I think the rendering is really pleasing.




Note the green edges in the background from LoCA





Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

Skeeterbytes said:

m43_photo said:

Hello all,

I'm in the process of building a Micro Four Thirds kit and have just ordered the OM-1 Mark II along with the 12–40mm f/2.8 II from B&H.

I'm looking for advice on what are currently considered the best lenses for a well-rounded system. In particular, I'm interested in zooms across the range—wide-angle, standard (which I believe is covered), and telephoto. I'm also considering the 12–100mm f/4 as a travel option.

Click to expand...

Splendid start. Suggest considering:

8-25/4, fantastic UWA to normal zoom.
40-150/2.8, goes like peas in a pod with the 12-40 and if anything is even sharper. MC14 and MC20 might complement it if you do not wish to get a supertele.

But if you do, either the 300/4 or 100-400mkii.

Click to expand...

As another thread points out, the 100-400 MK II also has sync IS, so probably 7+ stops of stabilization. Quite handy for wildlife photos

Skeeterbytes said:

Which leaves a fast prime or two. Depending on your favorite FLs one of the 1.2 Pros makes a solid choice. The 1.8 primes are tiny, fast and sharp, and two have recently been weather-sealed.

The 12-100 does make a great one-lens for everything option. Sync IS eases handholding very long exposure times.

As reference I have all the above including the camera, except a couple primes and the 100-400ii. Really nothing they can't do.

Skeeterbytes said:

This will be my primary modern camera system, so I'm thinking in terms of a complete, flexible kit. I'd also appreciate recommendations for standout primes. I'm currently eyeing the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the 15mm, both of which were highly regarded the last time I looked into them.

For context: I used Micro Four Thirds in its early days (original E-M5 with a few lenses), and I have experience with photography more broadly—I've shot with the Sony A7R series and the Leica M system. I’ve moved away from Sony due to the size and weight of the lenses, and Leica, while wonderful, doesn't really work as a complete system for my needs.

Use cases will be broad: hiking, travel, wildlife, macro, and landscape.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Click to expand...

Happy shopping!

Rick

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

Yes, but… I prefer having UWA options to having to stitch scenes with movement.

Click to expand...

If I were to do a lot more UWA photography, I would certainly invest in an UWA lens. At the moment, 12 is wide enough, and stitching works when it isn't.

ahaslett said:

ahaslett said:

I believe both of these lenses are the pinnacle of zoom lenses on any format.

Click to expand...

You can’t be serious? They are good lenses, but certainly not a pinnacle.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am serious. Both are most excellent lenses, and hold up against other great lenses on other formats. A very satisfied user here.

ahaslett said:

The 12-100/4 is rather heavy on the body and has no foot to attach a strap to. I find the pair of f2.8 zooms suit me better. The 12-100/4 is a decent super zoom but still not quite up with lower ratio zooms at f4. We are all different of course, so I can see it is a useful part of the offer.

Click to expand...

I have no personal experience of this lens, but am aware of its most excellent reputation, for a superzoom.

ahaslett said:

Mistakes like the f1.2 Olympus primes didn’t help their business. It will be interesting to see if OM issue OM branded versions once the stock is finally gone. Hopefully OM will be able to invest in tele lens design to reduce size and weight. Maybe the new tele will do that.

Click to expand...

I could be a potential buyer for the 17 and 45 f1.2 primes. I understand that they are both excellent lenses. Expensive, but very good. I think the failing with this range of lenses was cost and weight / size. Given how good and compact the f1.8 primes are, and their low cost, it's a big upsell to the f1.2 lenses.

I think a very big perception issue is "but I'm still only at 20 megapixels", which may have turned away a lot of users who may be able to take advantage of those lenses, but have moved to larger formats. As you say, it will be very interesting to see what happens when inventory is exhausted.

Olympus has a huge range of great glass.

I’d never buy a non-WR lens for my mft system with WR bodies, but that still leaves a lot of (hi-end) options, like:

• All the pro lenses
• New versions of 17/1.8 and 25/1.8

You basically can’t go frong with these. Just figure out what focal lengths you need. My preference is smaller size, so for me, the primes are these new f1.8 lenses or 20/1.4, not the bigger f1.2 counterparts.

Also, Panasonic has some great small WR primes, as well as Sigma.

Like yourself I have been in M4/3 user for quite a while and I am just now getting back to using it seriously after too many years carrying just my phone for photos. While I have been tempted to pick up a used OM1 Mk1 for the time being I am sticking with my Pen-Fs as I do love the small Pen style cameras.

Anyway, to your question. For my tele-zoom I picked up a like new 40-150 f2.8 with the 1.4 TC from a vendor in Japan. The ability to use the 1.4 was my main reason to go with that lens rather than the f4. Even if it would physically fit, I would prefer the f2.8 native speed so the combo did not get too slow for shooting early mornings and evenings.

Compared with other M4/3 lenses this thing is a beast. In fact, I have been trying to locate a suitable bag for it along with the rest of my kit and it is like trying to mix oil with water. I will probably re-purpose one of my old bags I had when I was shooting big DSLRs for the whole kit and then smaller bags for working out of.

Performance wise I don't have enough time with it other than to say it appears to be critically sharp including the corners and after stopping down to f4 it is amazing. It is the one reason I would wish for a larger body like the OM1 as it is a handful on my small Pen-F bodies.

Anyway that's my 2-cents. All I can say is it would not be a mistake to go with this lens.

I went w the 12-200 over the 12-100 as a travel/all around lens for weight and cost reasons. It's my most used lens, even for night time walks around town w two dogs in tow. Not stabilized, but IBIS on my E-M1/II is sufficient.

For birds I have the 300/4, but if buying now I might go for the new 100-400/II, but can't part w the 300 or justify owning both.

For bug and flower macros, I traded my 60 mm for a 90, the extra reach makes a difference for my use.

At the wide end I have the 8-25.

Bunch more, but those are the ones I use most.

m43_photo said:

Hello all,

I'm in the process of building a Micro Four Thirds kit and have just ordered the OM-1 Mark II along with the 12–40mm f/2.8 II from B&H.

I'm looking for advice on what are currently considered the best lenses for a well-rounded system. In particular, I'm interested in zooms across the range—wide-angle, standard (which I believe is covered), and telephoto. I'm also considering the 12–100mm f/4 as a travel option.

This will be my primary modern camera system, so I'm thinking in terms of a complete, flexible kit. I'd also appreciate recommendations for standout primes. I'm currently eyeing the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the 15mm, both of which were highly regarded the last time I looked into them.

For context: I used Micro Four Thirds in its early days (original E-M5 with a few lenses), and I have experience with photography more broadly—I've shot with the Sony A7R series and the Leica M system. I’ve moved away from Sony due to the size and weight of the lenses, and Leica, while wonderful, doesn't really work as a complete system for my needs.

Use cases will be broad: hiking, travel, wildlife, macro, and landscape.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Click to expand...

I would assume that the majority of your "use cases" will be shot during daylight (I doubt you are hiking at night, shooting wildlife at night, and taking night landscapes. I would also doubt your take macro shots without light, but for travel that could be a mix if indoor and outdoor). Given these assumptions (feel free to correct me), I have a few thoughts.

If you are after maximum IQ, skip the 12-100 and get the 40-150/2.8 (with a Teleconverter) and 7-14/2.8 lenses - you might even be able to skip the primes. Or, if you want a prime, get the OM System 17/1.8 or OM System 20/1.4 rather than getting 2 lenses that are close to those focal lengths. This will do most of what you want very well with the exception of being very small and light, having a long FL for certain types of wildlife, and doing macro (sorry, I can't help you there, but there's lots of options for macro depending on what FL you want and what you can afford)

Me personally, I'm ok with 99% of the IQ and don't need the F2.8 for zooms. I'd probably go with the 12-45/4 and 40-150/4, and a 17/1.8 or 25/1.8 as a light weight kit.... or what I have already done and that's get the 8-25/4 and 12-100/4 as my main lenses. then I can supplement from there. I have the PL15/1.7 and am going to sell it - too much CA for me. I'll likely get the Olympus 17/1.8 it's not perfect at the edges at F1.8 but the center is fine and CAs managed fairly well. From here you could add the new 100-400 II and whatever macro suits you and have a nice 5 lens kit that covers 16-800mm, has a lens for Indoor and something for closeups.

.

Last thing, for a telephoto option, you could wait a bit and see if the rumored 50-200/2.8 turns out to be true... you could slap a 1.4x or 2x TC on that and get reach when you need it and only add an inch to the length of the lens with the trade off being a little loss of maximum IQ. I have no idea what this'll cost, when/if it'll come out.

Keep in mind that if you don't use weather sealed lenses, the camera's sensor is less protected as well.

You can use m43lenses.com to get a list of lenses by brand, prime / zoom, type (focal length range, macro), focus (auto / manual), weather sealing, and stabilization. It also lists the weight and release year of each lens.

Professional lens reviews are mostly overly positive, but you can get some useful details from opticallimits.com, lenstip.com, photoreview.com.au, imaging-resource.com , ephotozine.com, photographyblog.com, and some others.

I wonder how many cameras that 12-40 f/2.8 has sold? I know that seeing the price on that lens helped tip me into MFT.