Lenses for OM3

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

I have this setup, but I don’t use the OM-3 with the 40-150 on a regular basis. It handles fine with it, but I typically use that with the OM-1 Mark II.



You’re gonna love it!

Maybe try 75-300 Mk2 less expensive nd longer reach

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

Seems well considered.

While the 40-150/2.8 is my most-used lens the OM-3 might pair better with the 40-150/4, from a compact kit standpoint.

OTOH the 2.8 takes the MC teleconverters, adding considerable flexibility.

Will also suggest considering the 8-25/4, a terrific walkaround UWA-normal zoom.

Good luck!

Rick

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

How do you expect to use your OM-3 (eg. Street, birding, macro, portraits, bit of everything?), and what focal lengths do you prefer?

I personally prefer to keep my kit lightweight, my everyday walkaround setup consists of the following:

• OM-3 body
• 9mm F1.7
• 15mm F1.7
• 42.5mm F1.7
• FL-LM3 with a credit card-sized bounce card

If I expect to be birding, I add my 75-300mm. For trailrunning and rainy shooting I leave all my primes at home and only use my 12-45mm. For events I might throw in my 40-150R plastic fantastic just in case.

Kasuobes said:

How do you expect to use your OM-3 (eg. Street, birding, macro, portraits, bit of everything?),

Click to expand...

Exactly - and: where on Earth is OP?

F/4 lenses are fine if you are in California or SE-Asia, but with the higher latitudes and greater cloud coverage of London, Oslo or Anchorage, where life outside can be 2 to 4 stops dimmer, they're not ideal.

Danielvr said:

Danielvr said:

How do you expect to use your OM-3 (eg. Street, birding, macro, portraits, bit of everything?),

Click to expand...

Exactly - and: where on Earth is OP?

F/4 lenses are fine if you are in California or SE-Asia, but with the higher latitudes and greater cloud coverage of London, Oslo or Anchorage, where life outside can be 2 to 4 stops dimmer, they're not ideal.

Click to expand...

Eh, I don't mind the slowness in between responses. I too sometimes post something from my phone and forget to check back until several hours later. For all we know OP could be out with his camera right now taking photos.

F4 in low light can be challenging for me as well, but I'm not too allergic to noise so I simply let leave my ISO uncapped at 102400(!) and deal with it in Topaz or DxO afterwards. The tiny FL-LM3 flash is also an absolute darling for low light shoots, it weighs next to nothing and puts out so much light for its size.

I have the OM-3 and for the base walk around kit, I'll pair it with either the 12-45 f/4 or the 14-42 EZ if I want an even smaller carry. Either one does a fine job. My -partner lens to either of those general purposes lenses is the 40-150 f/4. The 40-150 f/2.8 is too big for my taste with the OM-3. I had both the f/4 and the f/2.8 and after a while the f/2.8 was gathering dust on the shelf and was sold. I also like the 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye which can be set in camera with the OM-3 to be a 5mm rectilinear, Image below.

The OM-3 is a dandy camera and suitable for a wide, wide range of photographic venues, everything from point and shoot family gatherings, to fast flying birds in flight, to candids on the street,

Here's mine with the 14-42EZ..






8mm Fisheye with OM-3 Mono Profile 2






Same shot set for 5mm in-camera Rectilinear

This is all great info so thank you.

I tend to do a little bit of everything. Documenting life, family, travel, landscapes, larger wildlife in their environments etc. I like 35 and 50 on full frame, I don’t get on with 85 and was looking to add a quality zoom in the 100-300/400 range but the prices and size put me off. I’d love to try picking out little parts of a wider landscape scene and micro four thirds seems like a perfect system for that without the size and expense. That flash looks good and tiny too. Does that come with the om3?

I think @danielvr meant where on Earth (location) not where on earth (why am I not responding)! I’m in Houston, Texas but am from the UK so often travel there. Mixed lighting conditions hence the f2.8 zoom in my future. I’m hoping it will double for portrait duty when occasionally needed too.

Sounds like I’ve made a good choice of kit. I’ll pull the trigger tomorrow. I’ll get the 12-45, 17 and 25 initially and will look at the zooms and see if I can get a feel for them on the OM-3 when I’m ready to buy. I can always rent first before I decide. Thanks everyone! I’m looking forward to joining the micro four thirds community!

paul_mag said:

This is all great info so thank you.

I tend to do a little bit of everything. Documenting life, family, travel, landscapes, larger wildlife in their environments etc. I like 35 and 50 on full frame, I don’t get on with 85 and was looking to add a quality zoom in the 100-300/400 range but the prices and size put me off. I’d love to try picking out little parts of a wider landscape scene and micro four thirds seems like a perfect system for that without the size and expense.

Click to expand...

If that’s all you’re looking to do, honestly I would start with the 40-150/4. It collapsible design makes it much more of a “no brainer” to bring on a hike, etc. Even tho I own the f/2.8 (which is my favorite zoom of all time, regardless of system), if I was building an OM-3-based hiking kit it would be the 8-25/4, 12-45/4 and 40-150/4 with the 17/1.8 and 25/1.8 for when I wanted shallower DoF or was working in low light. I took that exact setup on my last vacation and it all fit in a Wandrd Rogue 6L.

paul_mag said:

That flash looks good and tiny too. Does that come with the om3?

Click to expand...

Nope, have to buy that separately. I personally would go for something like the Godox iT30Pro (although it does t bounce easily).

paul_mag said:

That flash looks good and tiny too. Does that come with the om3?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the FL-LM3 doesn't come bundled anymore, but you might be able to pick up a used copy really cheaply. Mine cost the equivalent of $35 USD from a used camera store after a bit of haggling.

paul_mag said:

I think @danielvr meant where on Earth (location)

Click to expand...

Correct.

I don't know how picky you are about noise and dynamic range, but I'd recommend that you stay below 1600 ISO especially in low light. On a typical cloudy December day in London, with the f/4 lens, that would give you a fastest exposure time of around 1/250s.

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

I've been playing around with kits too, trying to keep the spirit of M43.

I find a joy in being able to hold a small camera and small lens in one hand and just take snaps while I'm walking on the trail.

• Main: 12-45 F4, laowa 6mm, 20mm f1.4, 75-300. Prepared for almost anything. Can do birding in good light. All 58mm filter threads. The 20mm f1.4 is more to get bokeh, like when I was trekking in Nepal and paid $5 to some priests to take portraits. Chose this over the 17mm f1.8 because the 12-45 is light enough to shoot one handed.
• Landscape: 8-25 F4, and 12-100 (keeps 72mm filter threads) or 40-150 F4 (more range). Pair with the 17mm f1.8 because the zooms are big. Keep them in your bag and just use the 17mm f1.8 on the trail. The 12-100 has much nicer bokeh than you'd expect, use that for environmental portraits like photos at the peak.
• Street or urban travel: 12-45, favorite small prime, ideally in silver (12mm, 17 or 25mm f1.8, 75mm, etc). The 12-45 has a super close focus distance, so it's actually quite good for food. Use HHRS to deal with noise in dimly lit restaurants or at night.

The problem I had with the 40-150 f2.8 is it's big, you actually don't get a ton of subject isolation, and the bokeh can be busy. Lightroom has some tools to add blur or mask the background, but sometimes it can mess up and look like bad AI art.

So I take the 75-300 if there is a chance I might see something and want a lens just in case. If I know I will see something, I just bring the 300 F4. I've come to prefer the PL lenses (particularly the 35-100, 50-200, 200, and 100-400) if I'm photographing larger wildlife with potentially busy backgrounds (tall grass is my nemesis). The PL tend to at least be average in out of focus areas, whereas it can be a weakness with OM in certain situations.

I did love the results I got from some of the pro lenses like the 7-14 and 12-40 f2.8, but the weights are comparable to full frame (Sigma 16-28, 28-70, Panasonic 14-28, 28-200), and the new wide lenses tend to outresolve the wide M43 ones. I suspect field curvature is harder to avoid at 7-8mm vs 14-16mm. The main benefit for M43 is lenses up to the PL 50-200 roughly; after that they're about the same size as full frame.

My main complaint is there is no weathersealed OM equivalent to the PL 8-18. Taking the 8-25 means you need to build your whole kit around it since it's so unique.

I've used my 12-32 at 5.6 in the lake district in February when it's been really overcast and raining and been happy with the images. Same with the 100-300 photographing ducks in pouring rain.

F4 is luxury and more than fine for the UK in the daytime.

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

I have lots of OM/Olympus gear, so I may not be representative of 'normal' users. My main 2 cameras are now the OM-1 mark I and OM-3. I had a fall on vacation in Hawaii, and I could not lift the heavy backpack in flying back to Massachusetts (I had to ship it via UPS). when I got back, I spent some time getting a lighter lens setup, and folded in buying the OM-3 to upgrade my E-m5 mark III.

One niche thing that I do is disguise my cameras and go to steampunk events and renaissance faires. In the past, the big builds used the older E-m1 mark II camera with HLD-9 battery grip, and the smaller builds used the E-m5 mark III. In early May, I went to an outdoor steampunk event with my OM-3 + 17mm f/1.8 mark II lens, and the OM-3/17mm survived the rains we had during the day.

I tend to go with the OM-1 for the big lenses, etc. and the OM-3 for the smaller stuff. Other than the steampunk event, I haven't done as much shooting with the OM-3. I now have one leather 1/2 case, and 2 grips for the OM-3.

I have a few minor gripes about the way the OM-3 is laid out. They aren't major, but I do think about them.

• I dislike the placement of the color dial on the OM-3. I find when I'm holding the OM-3, my fingers tend to go on the color dial. I sort of wish the dial was located on the top, but I would imagine this was pay homage to the Pen-F which in turn paid homage to the OM-1/2/3 film cameras that had a control on the right body.
• The OM-3 has fewer buttons than either the OM-5/E-m5 mark III and OM-1 mark I/II. It is understandable, that the OM-3 have fewer buttons than the OM-1 mark I/II, since those are positioned as the high end bodies. But the E-m5 mark III/OM-3 are positioned as the low end bodies, but they have more programmable buttons. In particular, on the other cameras, there was an 'ISO' button that I used to toggle the 2x digital tele-converter.
• I find the eye cup has a tendency to come off. Earlier Olympus bodies had this problem, but the OM-1 had an eye cup that doesn't come off as easily. I have a thread going through the eye cup and one of the strap holders, so that when it comes off, it will dangle on the camera.
• I do think OM mis-priced the OM-3. I think it should have been priced between the OM-5 and OM-1 bodies. Instead, depending on what sales are going on, the OM-1 mark II at times was cheaper than the OM-3.
• While the 'OM-3' pays homage to the film OM-3, I really wish they had used a different name. Now, when you search for things like grips/case for the OM-3, you might find a grip/case for the film camera and not the digital camera.
• Compared to the OM-5, the OM-3 adds a headphone jack so you can monitor sound being recorded. That is great. I actually had a video that the first 13 minutes was ruined because the microphone wasn't plugged in correctly, and the camera didn't have a headphone port to monitor things. However, in adding the headphone jack, the OM-3 dropped the port for the wired shutter release. In the past, I had microprocessors use the wired shutter release port, and I would not be able to use the OM-3 for that. The OM-3 does support the wireless RM-WR2 shutter release. Unfortunately the older RM-WR1 shutter release (that I use with the OM-1) is not supported, and the RM-WR2 still has not started shipping. I went to a family reunion where I took formal portraits, and I used the OM-1 because I didn't have the RM-WR2.

In terms of the color wheel, for normal lenses I prefer a combination of a leather 1/2 case and the Peak Designs micro-clutch:

• OM-3 leather 1/2 case
• Peak Designs micro-clutch (I-plate)

I tend to like leather 1/2 cases on my smaller cameras. I did order a 'yellow' case so it is different than the brown/coffee case for my older E-m5 mark III.

The micro-clutch helps keep my fingers away from the color wheel. However without the leather 1/2 case, the micro-clutch sticks out in the front. The case is thick enough that I don't notice the micro-clutch sticking out.

I have two grips also. I first bought a 3D printed grip from an ebay seller. I didn't like the hand strap position on the case that rubbed into my hand as I gripped the camera, and the seller re-printed the grip to have the hand strap position not have the sharp edge that I had noticed. The seller said after the current stock runs out, they/she/he will switch to the new design for future builds.

• USA ebay 3D printed OM-3 grip

I had previously asked about the Lefoto OM-3 grip. I was told that normally they won't be able to sell it in the USA due to a patent claim. But they had imported a few of the grips for an event, and I was able to buy one. I just got it, and I haven't really compared the 2 grips:

• Lefoto OM-3 grip
• Lefoto OM-3 grip via aliexpress.us

paul_mag said:

Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.

Goal: small, high-quality kit.

Current plan:

• OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
• Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
• Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes

I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.

Anyone using this setup?

Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.

Click to expand...

Ok, on to the lenses.

I bought the OM-3 + 12-45mm kit. I've had the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 for 10 years now, but since I was buying a light weight set of lenses, I figured to get the 12-45mm lens as well. If weight/size/cost is an issue, the 12-45mm f/4 appears to be a great lens. I've used for some shots and it is great. That being said, I suspect I will more likely go out with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, even though it is 128g (0.3lbs) heavier. For indoor shooting, the f/2.8 can be helpful, but generally, the f/4 (or using the primes) should be ok.

I do find with my thinner bodies, that the 12-40mm is typically the largest lens I want to shot without having a grip. The issue is how the camera feels when I'm holding the camera in just my right hand. With the leather 1/2 case, the heavier 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 lens is also ok.

The 17mm f/1.8 mark II is a joy to use with the OM-3. I have the larger 17mm f/1.2, but on the OM-3, I likely will use the 17mm f/1.8 mark II.

I do have one issue with the 17mm f/1.8 mark II. I've been having problems grasping small things, and I find it hard to remove the 17mm f/1.8 because the lens is so tiny. So I got a filter wrench, and it allows me to remove the 17mm lens more easily (along other similar short lenses).

In the past I briefly owned the 12mm f/2 and 25mm f/1.8 lenses, and I found that for me, I just wasn't using them, so I sold them.

I've had the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 mark I lens for years, and when I was dropping the large amount of cash to upgrade this spring, I got the OM 20mm f/1.4 lens to replace the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens. Now, I had found in the past that sometimes 20mm is just too long of a lens to use for indoor shooting (15-18mm seems to be my sweet spot). So I'm still wonder if I'm going to use the 20mm all that much. Some of the reviews indicate the 20mm at times has purple fringing in strong backlight situations.

You mentioned the 40-150mm f/2.8. I have to admit, it is a wonderful lens (I bought it used in 2024). However, it is a rather heavy lens. You are going to have to balance cost/weight before getting it. One of the places it shines is for indoor theater. I recently did some humming bird photos with the OM-1 and 40-150mm f/2.8 on a tripod (using OIShare to capture the photo when a bird landed on the feeder). When I'm using the 40-150mm f/2.8 on the OM-3, I will use one of my two grips. Or given, I have multiple bodies, just use the 40-150mm f/2.8 with the OM-1 mark I.

An alternative to the 40-150mm f/2.8 is the 40-150mm f/4. It is a lot lighter and cheaper, though obviously it is 1 stop slower.

You didn't mention a longer lens. I had picked up the 100-400mm f/5-6.3 in 2024, and when I got the lower weight lenses this year, I picked up the 75-300mm f/4.8-6.3. Now, 75-300mm is not splash resist and it 'only' goes to 300mm. I find for some of things I want to photograph, that the subject really needs a 400mm lens, but a lot of times, the 75-300mm is a lot lighter, and reasonable for high focal length shots.

I tend to like using a super-zoom for outdoor shots, since I don't have to change lenses so often. For about 10 years, my super-zoom of choice was the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 (both mark I/II, note only mark II is splash resistant). I have shot with the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 mark II in quite a few wet situations, and I can vouch for it being splash resistant. For the OM-3, I tend to think the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 mark II fits the smaller body (and it is cheaper/lighter).


In 2020, I did upgrade to the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3, and I find having the extra wide angle and telephoto helps. In 2021-2024, the 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 was my most used lens.

One other lens to think about picking up is the 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. I like using the 60mm for tripod macro shots, using the focus stacking option to combine 8 shots to give me more depth of field.

Note, OM-3 no longer comes with the clip-on FL-LM3 flash. If you find one, it works well to give a bit of highlight fill, and it is fairly small and splash resistant. Outside of the FL-LM3, I find Godox has a bunch of interesting flashes. The TT350O flash isn't that big that it would overwhelm the OM-3 (like the FL-900R does).

Due to European regulations on e-waste, the OM-3 and OM-1 mark II no longer come with an A/C wall wart to charge the battery. Normal phone chargers will work, but you will get the fastest recharge if your A/C wall wart provides USB C-PD (power delivery) and the charger can deliver at least 18 watts of power. If you get the external battery charge (BCX-1), note that charge requires USB C-PD that can provide at least 27 watts of power.

It is unusual to move from FF all the way down to M43.

If weight is the issue, APS-c would give better than M43 quality : Fuji XT5 has a higher resolution sensor which is larger too.

Plus a bigger and sharper EVF than the OM3...