What is your holy trinity pf primes?

cameron2 wrote:

tinternaut wrote:

Though my 17 is the much maligned f2.8 lens. Should I get the 17mm f1.8? I very nearly did, but went for the 12-40 instead.

You're fine with the 12-40 as long as the size of it works for you

If not, consider the 14mm and the 20mm from Panasonic, which are tiny and both decent IQ (the 20mm supposedly moreso).

Thanks to eBay, I've acquired more lenses than I ever intended to.  I see the 12-40 as my one lens  for travel.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't take other lenses, but if I have to pack light then it's just the E-P5 + 12-40.

Both the 14 and 20 are great little lenses, but I'm in the market for cheap Panasonic body, to get the best out of them (perhaps a GM1, currently available for as little as £299 from Panasonic's refurb store on eBay).

The new year's resolution, not to collect more stuff, is looking like a poor idea already.

FT 7-14, 14-54 MkII, 50-200 MkI ... 

I also use FT f/2.8 25, f/2 50 and a bunch of OM primes and zooms ...

Yeah, right now my fear is that once the 7-14/2.8 comes out I'll be just as eager to get my hands on it and I won't be able to resist purchasing it. As for low light focusing I have been very impressed with the 12-40. Even if it has to hunt from near to far it's amazing how quickly it does so.

Pete

Guy Parsons wrote:

petersolymosi wrote:

I remember seeing quite a few posts where you've indicated that you love your 12-40/2.8 more than primes and until a couple weeks ago I would have argued that primes were way better. That was until I picked up a copy of the 12-40/2.8 along with a new E-M5ii and it has really changed my mind about zooms. I have the 17/1.8, 25/1.8, and 45/1.8 and have to say that the 12-40 is sharper than either the 17 or 25 at f/2.8.

It's a mind-blowing experience. The reason I have thus far kept my primes is because of the extra light gathering capability and the miniscule size. But, for sharpness alone, the 12-40 is a really special lens.

Pete

Better results and less lens swaps all works out to make me a happy bunny.

My oft told tale of a night shoot with Olympus finally convinced me that my prime lust was gone. Basically it was extremely low light and when I tried the sample 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 I was flabbergasted that those two just would not AF reliably in that low light, swapped back to my 12-40mm and AF was spot on first time every time (on E-PL5 then). Result: prime lust = dead.

Regards.... Guy

I'm not a trinity guy either, but I do use 3 primes-- along w/ a bunch of zooms.  So:

Pana 8mm fish-eye

Oly 17mm f1.8

Oly 60mm macro

Work horse lenses are 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8.

JL

This trio sounds good to me.

F.

For the GM5. Size matters...
--
Sabesh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/

I only have three primes right now:  the Oly 25mm 1.8, the Oly 45mm 1.8, and the Oly 60mm 2.8.    So, I guess that's my holy trinity.

I am oh so very seriously considering getting the 75mm 1.8.  In fact, I think I have pretty much made up my mind that a purchase is imminent.  Once I get the 75mm ....  I don't know, I sure wouldn't want to part with any of my existing primes.  Maybe I will just have a holy quartet.

My choices lean to the long end, probably for two reasons.  (1) I confess that I do enjoy shooting with my iPhone (even though I know that's heresy around here), and I tend to want focal lengths that are different from my iPhone.  (2) I lean toward portraits and people shots for the most part, and I find the longer lengths more flattering.

C Sean wrote:

It doesn't have to be all primes, say you have a wide angle zoom instead of a prime.

Here is mine.

15mm 1.7

Originally my trinity used to consist of Panasonic 14mm and the 20mm. Both of these lenses worked very well together and very often traveled together. The 15mm 1.7 captured a lot of their strengths and you could say the 15mm is the love child of the 14mm and the 25mm.

25mm 1.4

Now the 20mm is only used for indoor shots for rare occasions, I have space in my pocket/bag for additionial lens and the 25mm 1.4 get my use for it speed and it completely different focal length.

45mm 2.8

Part macro, part portrait lens. Another lens from the Pana/Lecia featuring the duo personality disorder. I could of gone for the Olympus but I wanted the Macro as an extra instead of speed/macro. Even when the new 42mm 1.7 comes out, I most likely ignore it.

9mm Oly

14mm Panny

20mm Panny

Thats my pancake holy trinity

Wellington100 wrote:

9mm Oly

14mm Panny

20mm Panny

Thats my pancake holy trinity

All pancakes, but more importantly, all wider than normal.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

My current philosophy is the Prime Trio must contain a wide, normal and telephoto.

I became a big fan of wide angles.
It didn't start out that way.

Early days in film was all about telephotos for me.
At that time my Prime Trio was 55/1.8, 135/2.8 and 200/3.5 Sekor SX.
The biggest reason being I was shooting a lot of concerts.

But as I gained better and closer access (guest list, backstage/orch pit access, tech crew, media member, opening act muso, entourage, etc) I 'discovered' wide angles.
I was rarely a paid photographer but I may have been shooting alongside a pro who suggested I needed a wide angle, and it was certainly true.
I added the SX 28mm/2.8.

SX Trio:
28mm
55mm
135mm

By the time I moved to Pentax K's I was full into wides with 24, 28 and 35mm primes and a wide-normal zoom, plus the teles of course (135, 200).

SMC Trio:
24mm
50mm
135mm

I still have most of my film kit and have attempted as best as possible to mimic those FLs in the u4/3 lenses where they are available.
But there's a gap at the long end specifically at 200mm equiv.

Oh, and there's not yet a way to adapt the SX glass without machine work to the lens or adapter.

Still, wide/normal/tele is my story and I'm sticking to it. ;->

rd

RedDog Steve wrote:

Wellington100 wrote:

9mm Oly

14mm Panny

20mm Panny

Thats my pancake holy trinity

All pancakes, but more importantly, all wider than normal.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

My current philosophy is the Prime Trio must contain a wide, normal and telephoto.

I became a big fan of wide angles.
It didn't start out that way.

Early days in film was all about telephotos for me.
At that time my Prime Trio was 55/1.8, 135/2.8 and 200/3.5 Sekor SX.
The biggest reason being I was shooting a lot of concerts.

But as I gained better and closer access (guest list, backstage/orch pit access, tech crew, media member, opening act muso, entourage, etc) I 'discovered' wide angles.
I was rarely a paid photographer but I may have been shooting alongside a pro who suggested I needed a wide angle, and it was certainly true.
I added the SX 28mm/2.8.

SX Trio:
28mm
55mm
135mm

By the time I moved to Pentax K's I was full into wides with 24, 28 and 35mm primes and a wide-normal zoom, plus the teles of course (135, 200).

SMC Trio:
24mm
50mm
135mm

I still have most of my film kit and have attempted as best as possible to mimic those FLs in the u4/3 lenses where they are available.
But there's a gap at the long end specifically at 200mm equiv.

Oh, and there's not yet a way to adapt the SX glass without machine work to the lens or adapter.

Still, wide/normal/tele is my story and I'm sticking to it. ;->

rd

Heh heh, well then I have to confess that what I carry in my camera bag is the three pancakes plus a 45mm Oly so I guess that would have to replace the 9mm. I like my kit small, I only wish that Panny had made a 50mm Pancake, now that would be something.

alternately Sigma 60/Oly 45 & 25. Rarely use WA

Honestly Tom, those are great lenses, and very reasonably priced too, but those aren't the most useful focal lengths for M4/3. These lenses were designed for APSC, and as such they made perfect sense:

• 19mm on APSC provides a 28mm FOV, a classic wide angle
• 30mm on APSC provides a 45mm FOV, a classic normal view
• 60mm on APSC provides a 90mm FOV, a classic portrait lens

Now, slap a M4/3 lens mount on them, and this is what you get...

• 19mm on M4/3 provides a 38mm FOV, not really normal, not really wide
• 30mm on M4/3 provides a 60mm FOV, too long for normal, too short for tele
• 60mm on M4/3 provides a 120mm FOV, which really isn't bad. This is the one Sigma lens I would consider, since this can be a very useful focal length for portraits taken outdoors.

What Sigma intended to create for Sony NEX, you can do using native M4/3 lenses. They will cost a little more, but they will be faster:

• 14mm f/2.5 for wide
• 25mm f/1.8 for normal
• 45mm f/1.8 for portrait

You have now spent around $850 and have three nice prime lenses that were designed for those purposes. If you buy the Sigma trio, you will spend less (around $620) but you end up with slower lenses that were designed for Sony NEX, and for an APSC sensor.

I'm not saying those Sigma lenses aren't great lenses, because they really are. But unless you just need to save some money, I'd rather stick with the faster M4/3 lenses. Besides... I already own them!