Which Olympus lenses are right for me?

Hi everyone:

After purchasing many cheap and simple cameras over past 10 years, I have decided to invest more money into a decent camera/lenses that will last me longer, allow me to have some freedom in my photographs and possibly use this as a way to learn more about photography. however, the primary use of the camre will be to take it with me while traveling on business and vacations. Therefore, for now, I am mostly looking at taking landscape pictures, architecture, friends and family, etc.To be quite blunt, my knowledge of photography is limited, but am certainly eager to learn a lot more about it.

After much research, I have decided to go with Olympus OM-D E-M1. Primary reasons are that it has great reviews online and is seems to be a very light camera that you can travel with.

I've tried to do my homework on what lenses are most appropriate for my use … but am struggling to come to a conclusion as this is all foreign language to me. I would appreciate if some of your could help me out here in terms of which lenses I should go with.

My research indicates that Olympus ED 12-40mm f2.8 Pro is a very good overall lens. However, it does seem to be a bulkier lens that may be inconvenient to travel with. Hence, I am not sure if I should also purchase another, smaller, prime lenses as well. It seems that Olympus 12mm f2.0 and 17mm f1.8 are suitable choices as they are much smaller/lighter and will do a good job at taking the pictures that I am after.

I think that I should get ED 12-40mm f2.8 as it seems to be a great lens that will give me more freedom … and if I really find it to be incontinent while traveling, I should get either 12mm f2.0 or 17mm f1.8 and use one of those. I will always have ED 12-40 mm f2.8 to fall back on if I am looking for that diversity.

1. Am I correct in assuming that ED 12-40 mm f2.8 is a great lens that will be a good fit for my needs?
2. Assuming that I find ED 12-40 f2.8 to be convenient while travelling, is there really a need to purchase one of the other 2 lenses (taking into account what I intend to use the camera for)?
3. Which of the two is more suitable for me considering what photos I am after?

Your answers are greatly appreciated and am more than happy to hear any other comments/suggestions you may have for me.

Thanks!
Dan

Dan the Newbie wrote:

Hi everyone:

After purchasing many cheap and simple cameras over past 10 years, I have decided to invest more money into a decent camera/lenses that will last me longer, allow me to have some freedom in my photographs and possibly use this as a way to learn more about photography. however, the primary use of the camre will be to take it with me while traveling on business and vacations. Therefore, for now, I am mostly looking at taking landscape pictures, architecture, friends and family, etc.To be quite blunt, my knowledge of photography is limited, but am certainly eager to learn a lot more about it.

After much research, I have decided to go with Olympus OM-D E-M1. Primary reasons are that it has great reviews online and is seems to be a very light camera that you can travel with.

I've tried to do my homework on what lenses are most appropriate for my use … but am struggling to come to a conclusion as this is all foreign language to me. I would appreciate if some of your could help me out here in terms of which lenses I should go with.

My research indicates that Olympus ED 12-40mm f2.8 Pro is a very good overall lens. However, it does seem to be a bulkier lens that may be inconvenient to travel with. Hence, I am not sure if I should also purchase another, smaller, prime lenses as well. It seems that Olympus 12mm f2.0 and 17mm f1.8 are suitable choices as they are much smaller/lighter and will do a good job at taking the pictures that I am after.

I think that I should get ED 12-40mm f2.8 as it seems to be a great lens that will give me more freedom … and if I really find it to be incontinent while traveling, I should get either 12mm f2.0 or 17mm f1.8 and use one of those. I will always have ED 12-40 mm f2.8 to fall back on if I am looking for that diversity.

1. Am I correct in assuming that ED 12-40 mm f2.8 is a great lens that will be a good fit for my needs?
2. Assuming that I find ED 12-40 f2.8 to be convenient while travelling, is there really a need to purchase one of the other 2 lenses (taking into account what I intend to use the camera for)?
3. Which of the two is more suitable for me considering what photos I am after?

Your answers are greatly appreciated and am more than happy to hear any other comments/suggestions you may have for me.

Thanks!
Dan

Comparing fixed focal length lenses and zooms is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Traditionally prime lenses were used because of better picture quality, but that is no longer really the case. However a prime lens will teach you much more about photography--about how to frame shots than a zoom will. Since you wish to learn about photography and are by all appearances open minded, and because you specifically mention the portability question, I would recommend you supplement the zoom with a prime lens. Of the two you mention the 17mm will be more useful as general lens. Wide enough for landscape and some good architectural shots and narrow enough for group portraits.

If you were smart you could pick up the 12mm, 17mm and 14-42 along with a cheaper body like the E-PL5 for roughly $1500.

Is the 12-40 worth the money? The devils in the detail really...

The problem is that the 12-40 resolves about as much detail as Micro Four Thirds sensors can currently resolve. The same goes for the Olympus 12mm, the 17mm is softer but acceptable.

Primes at this stage on Micro Four Thirds only really offer you advantage in terms of aperture. The 17mm F/1.8 is a nice lens if you need a traditional 35mm viewpoint in low light conditions and if you want to learn how to shoot the way a photo journalist would.

The 12mm F/2 is one of the sharpest lenses out there and by F/2.8 it matches the mark of the 12-40 F/2.8. I wouldn't say it's too wide, but that it's on the widest side of what would traditionally be considered normal.

The 12mm F/2 is my favorite on camera lens and it can be used in most scenarios, in portrait it has a narrow enough angle of view that that you can isolate your subject well. In landscape you can get it all in the lens and play with perspective distortion.

The downside of a wide angle lens like the 12mm is that you really do have to want to print a poster if you want to capture everything you've caught with your lens in the frame and that it's not quite wide enough to be fully immersive.

For the fully immersive experience you really need the 7-14 F/4 on the wider end and perhaps for a landscape photographer this is the ultimate lens available with a 14mm to 28mm frame it covers everything... Watch this in full screen to see what I mean about 14mm on the wide end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udbwS5-KXCQ

Dan the Newbie wrote:

1. Am I correct in assuming that ED 12-40 mm f2.8 is a great lens that will be a good fit for my needs?
2. Assuming that I find ED 12-40 f2.8 to be convenient while travelling, is there really a need to purchase one of the other 2 lenses (taking into account what I intend to use the camera for)?
3. Which of the two is more suitable for me considering what photos I am after?

While I'm travelling, a normal zoom starting at 12mm is responsible for at least 85% of my shots. So the M.Zuiko 12-40mm could also be your all-purpose lens.

Once in a while (between 5 to 10% of the cases), I would need a telezoom. That's the M.Zuiko 40-150mm. It costs next to nothing.

Rarely, you might need a lens wider than your normal zoom. The Lumix 7-14mm could fit the bill. To be honest, since my normal zoom starts at 12mm (rather than 14mm) I use the Lumix 7-14mm less than 1% of the time. But when I need it, it's invaluable.

Unless you have tried the E-M1, and, are familiar with changing lenses frequently, there are two steps you must do first, I think.

1) Go in a store to try a E-M1 with the 12-40 (or 12-50 if the store does not have the 12-40).

2) Decide what are your priorities: flexibility, weight/size, ergonomy, image quality, cost ?

Several people gave you honest, and, enthusiastic (and long) answers.

As sigala1 wrote, a LX7 might be enough for your needs (depending on your skills and goals). I was happy with a LX3 for a long while. The LX7 is certainly better than the LX3.

One thing you will read regularly in this forum (and elsewhere) is that any ISL camera by itself is not so important compared to the lenses you can mount on it. The largest investment will (gradually) be the lenses, not, the camera(s).

If you really want to carry a camera with you very often, you might be better with a smaller one (E-PM2, E-PL5, GX1, GM1), together with an small (pancake/power) zoom (Pana 12-32 or 14-42 PZ or Oly 14-42 EZ) or standard kit zoom (14-42). Or with a prime lens.

E-M1 : 497 g (1.10 lb)

12-40: 382 g (0.84 lb)

Total: 900g (1.94 lb).

For me, that weight is too much to carry around every time I go out for (maybe) taking pictures. I prefer to carry a GX1 + 20/1.7. Not always perfect, but, very usable, and, light.

YMMV

Dan,

I'm kind of in the same boat that you are.  My new E-M1 along with the 12,mm-40mm/F2.8 pro zoom arrived two days ago.  I figure that almost all of my shooting will fall into that range of focal length.  So the 12-40 is my starting point.  Other forum members have commented on the size and weight of the E-M1 along with the 12-40 being "a bit much."  And I agree.  But having the zoom, especially a pretty fast zoom is also very versatile.  I figure to get some experience using the camera with 12-40 aboard and then...

And then... I really do love the simplicity of fixed focal length lenses.  So after using the zoom for a time, I'll check my images' metadata and learn what focal length I'm typically shooting.  That should offer a guide to my "next lens."

Hope this helps,

Bill

Hi everyone:

After purchasing many cheap and simple cameras over past 10 years, I have decided to invest more money into a decent camera/lenses that will last me longer, allow me to have some freedom in my photographs and possibly use this as a way to learn more about photography. however, the primary use of the camre will be to take it with me while traveling on business and vacations. Therefore, for now, I am mostly looking at taking landscape pictures, architecture, friends and family, etc.To be quite blunt, my knowledge of photography is limited, but am certainly eager to learn a lot more about it.

After much research, I have decided to go with Olympus OM-D E-M1. Primary reasons are that it has great reviews online and is seems to be a very light camera that you can travel with.

I've tried to do my homework on what lenses are most appropriate for my use … but am struggling to come to a conclusion as this is all foreign language to me. I would appreciate if some of your could help me out here in terms of which lenses I should go with.

My research indicates that Olympus ED 12-40mm f2.8 Pro is a very good overall lens. However, it does seem to be a bulkier lens that may be inconvenient to travel with. Hence, I am not sure if I should also purchase another, smaller, prime lenses as well. It seems that Olympus 12mm f2.0 and 17mm f1.8 are suitable choices as they are much smaller/lighter and will do a good job at taking the pictures that I am after.

I think that I should get ED 12-40mm f2.8 as it seems to be a great lens that will give me more freedom … and if I really find it to be incontinent while traveling, I should get either 12mm f2.0 or 17mm f1.8 and use one of those. I will always have ED 12-40 mm f2.8 to fall back on if I am looking for that diversity.

1. Am I correct in assuming that ED 12-40 mm f2.8 is a great lens that will be a good fit for my needs?
2. Assuming that I find ED 12-40 f2.8 to be convenient while travelling, is there really a need to purchase one of the other 2 lenses (taking into account what I intend to use the camera for)?
3. Which of the two is more suitable for me considering what photos I am after?

Your answers are greatly appreciated and am more than happy to hear any other comments/suggestions you may have for me.

Thanks!
Dan

I have a bunch of primes collecting dust since I got the 12-40. IMHO zooms are the strength of m4/3. Small and very sharp. The 12-40 along with ibis will be very decent in low light.
Try the 12-40 first. Check what you like based on your shooting style and then buy what you really need. Otherwise you might be stuck with lenses you don't use and loose money when selling.

Good luck