Travel lenses advice

A few months ago I posted this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55912120

Summary: (if you don't want to read through that thread)

- I'm looking to get some different lenses for travel

- My Camera: Panasonic DMC-GF6, no in-body stabilization or e-shutter

- Current Lenses: 14-42mm kit lens (presumably v2), 14mm lens

- I know I will get the 20mm f1.7 because I want a small pancake w/ larger aperture

- I asked about the 14-42mm power OIS to save space, and nixed that after the responses

- I asked about the 14-140mm as a good all-around travel lens. People seemed to like it.

- Someone suggested the 45-150mm as a cheaper alternative

- Someone suggested the 42.5mm f1.7 if I wanted a set of primes

- Someone posted this as a size comparison: http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~3134778.jpg

After thinking about this for a couple months, I have some more thoughts and questions:

I invested in the m43 camera to have a significantly smaller alternative to my D7100. The more compact, the better.  I very briefly considered switching to the GM5 because it's so tiny, but I've discovered I really like the flip-out screen, and I really want to wait another year or two before investing in another body.

- I'm still getting the 20mm pancake, if I buy one new lens, this will be it. I take lots of food photos and this will be great for low-light settings where the f2.5 on the 14mm isn't enough.

- After looking at the photo, there's no way I would take the 45-150mm along w/ the 14-42mm (and the 14mm and the 20mm), that's just too much.

- I'm still concerned about shutter shock on the 14-140mm since my camera doesn't have an e-shutter.  Those of you who have this lens and use the lens shutter, have you experienced this, and how bad is it?

- I like the 42.5 f1.7, I will probably get it some day, but I'd like to travel w/ one zoom lens so I'm not going to consider this now

- 45-150mm is a cheaper option than the 14-140mm, and I'm not made of money, so cheaper is enticing. Could I do all I want to with the 14mm, 20mm, and 45-150mm?  Keeping in mind that I use my 14mm 80-85% of the time.  However it's nice to have the 14-42mm range sometimes.

- Does the 45-150mm lens also suffer from shutter shock?

- I noticed a 45-200mm and 45-175mm lens, also cheap, how do they compare?

- Also noticed a 35-100mm f4.0-5.6. Anybody have thoughts on this?  This one might be a better combo w/ the 14mm and 20mm and it's still relatively inexpensive. I wouldn't get as much zoom but I don't have any lenses past 200mm on my D7100 and I find my 18-105mm to be a sufficient zoom. I rarely use the 55-200mm.

Also, just looking at lenses in general, the 12-35mm looks pretty awesome, but out of my price range right now.  As long as I have the GF6, I'm looking at mostly panasonic lenses because it doesn't have the in-body image stabilization.

Thanks in advance for any advice

For travel it is very hard to beat the convenience of the 14-140mm, I really missed that convenience when I needed something longer on a recent tour in Italy. I did use the 45-150mm but the  45mm end is often way too long. So, two bodies solves that problem, which I have but I'll be getting the 14-140m as soon as I see it at a good price - then two bodies: one with 7-14mm and second with 14-140mm for complete coverage.

The 12-32mm is good and reasonably priced. 64mm equivalent isn't very long but much more flexible than a prime.

A wildcard option would be to buy the FZ200, now much reduced in price - 24-600mm at f2.8 but, obviously, a much smaller sensor.  See my Flickr Albums for examples.

Just go with the 14mm 2.5 and a ~45mm 1.x (Oly and Pan both have solid versions of this).  The smallest, lightest, and cheapest combo that still gives you a fast prime for low light, reach for portraits, and normal wide angle for walk around. You can carry the extra lens in your shirt pocket while you shoot. You said you rarely zoom past 100mm on your Nikon anyways; 90mm equiv is close enough.  And you already shoot 85% at 14mm, so you can't be too addicted to 17 or 25mm compositions.

Obviously I completely disregarded most of what you said in the original post.  But it seemed like your criteria were leading to a travel kit of: 14mm, 20mm, 45-150.  Which somehow feels not optimal.  Like the 14 and 20 are vying for the same job. And if the 45-150 would get a lot of its use at 45mm then a prime would do the same job but be 2-3 stops brighter, sharper, smaller, lighter.  And cheaper if you buy 1 lens instead of 2.

Just food for thought from a completely different angle, feel free to disregard.  Someone else will actually have answers to your specific questions.

Read through your post. If you're looking for a very simple, but versatile travel kit, you really can't beat the 14-140mm and 20mm combo.

Those were my first M4/3 lenses (and a 7-14mm). My girlfriend uses the two with a GX1 and has been very happy with them.

The 14mm, 20mm and 42.5mm f1.7 would work well, but there's a lot of lens swapping involved. The 14-140mm eliminates that.

Consider looking for a used 14-140mm to save a bit.

Take a look at the original 14-140mm. It gets kind of a bum rap, but it's really very good and about half the cost of the version II. Yes, it's bigger and heavier and not quite as sharp on the long end, but because of its beefier construction you won't have to worry about shutter shock, which while it can be a real issue, is really over blown around here.

If it's late night food, another wildcard option, the LX7 with 24mm at f1.4 is pretty good and 90mm at f2.2 is also quite handy. The sensor is 1/7th so pixel density is mid-way between ILC and Compact.   The lens is top class and handling superb. Pity Panasonic haven't produced an LX8 with tilting screen and/or EVF

sunshadow wrote:

A few months ago I posted this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55912120

Summary: (if you don't want to read through that thread)

- I'm looking to get some different lenses for travel

- My Camera: Panasonic DMC-GF6, no in-body stabilization or e-shutter

- Current Lenses: 14-42mm kit lens (presumably v2), 14mm lens

- I know I will get the 20mm f1.7 because I want a small pancake w/ larger aperture

- I asked about the 14-42mm power OIS to save space, and nixed that after the responses

- I asked about the 14-140mm as a good all-around travel lens. People seemed to like it.

- Someone suggested the 45-150mm as a cheaper alternative

- Someone suggested the 42.5mm f1.7 if I wanted a set of primes

- Someone posted this as a size comparison: http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~3134778.jpg

After thinking about this for a couple months, I have some more thoughts and questions:

I invested in the m43 camera to have a significantly smaller alternative to my D7100. The more compact, the better. I very briefly considered switching to the GM5 because it's so tiny, but I've discovered I really like the flip-out screen, and I really want to wait another year or two before investing in another body.

- I'm still getting the 20mm pancake, if I buy one new lens, this will be it. I take lots of food photos and this will be great for low-light settings where the f2.5 on the 14mm isn't enough.

- After looking at the photo, there's no way I would take the 45-150mm along w/ the 14-42mm (and the 14mm and the 20mm), that's just too much.

- I'm still concerned about shutter shock on the 14-140mm since my camera doesn't have an e-shutter. Those of you who have this lens and use the lens shutter, have you experienced this, and how bad is it?

- I like the 42.5 f1.7, I will probably get it some day, but I'd like to travel w/ one zoom lens so I'm not going to consider this now

- 45-150mm is a cheaper option than the 14-140mm, and I'm not made of money, so cheaper is enticing. Could I do all I want to with the 14mm, 20mm, and 45-150mm? Keeping in mind that I use my 14mm 80-85% of the time. However it's nice to have the 14-42mm range sometimes.

- Does the 45-150mm lens also suffer from shutter shock?

- I noticed a 45-200mm and 45-175mm lens, also cheap, how do they compare?

- Also noticed a 35-100mm f4.0-5.6. Anybody have thoughts on this? This one might be a better combo w/ the 14mm and 20mm and it's still relatively inexpensive. I wouldn't get as much zoom but I don't have any lenses past 200mm on my D7100 and I find my 18-105mm to be a sufficient zoom. I rarely use the 55-200mm.

Also, just looking at lenses in general, the 12-35mm looks pretty awesome, but out of my price range right now. As long as I have the GF6, I'm looking at mostly panasonic lenses because it doesn't have the in-body image stabilization.

Thanks in advance for any advice

Shuttershock.

I wasn't aware of it on a G6+14-140 until I read about it here! Prior to that I used mechanical shutter 100%. Having been made aware of it I've looked for it and think (!) it may have occurred on the odd occasion as a shot may have been a little less sharp than expected. After that I've used e shutter below 1/125th.

My conclusion is that it exists but its much ado about virtually nothing.

It's a fantastic lens btw.

Dave

sunshadow wrote:

A few months ago I posted this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55912120

Summary: (if you don't want to read through that thread)

- I'm looking to get some different lenses for travel

- My Camera: Panasonic DMC-GF6, no in-body stabilization or e-shutter

- Current Lenses: 14-42mm kit lens (presumably v2), 14mm lens

- I know I will get the 20mm f1.7 because I want a small pancake w/ larger aperture

- I asked about the 14-42mm power OIS to save space, and nixed that after the responses

- I asked about the 14-140mm as a good all-around travel lens. People seemed to like it.

- Someone suggested the 45-150mm as a cheaper alternative

- Someone suggested the 42.5mm f1.7 if I wanted a set of primes

- Someone posted this as a size comparison: http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~3134778.jpg

After thinking about this for a couple months, I have some more thoughts and questions:

I invested in the m43 camera to have a significantly smaller alternative to my D7100. The more compact, the better. I very briefly considered switching to the GM5 because it's so tiny, but I've discovered I really like the flip-out screen, and I really want to wait another year or two before investing in another body.

- I'm still getting the 20mm pancake, if I buy one new lens, this will be it. I take lots of food photos and this will be great for low-light settings where the f2.5 on the 14mm isn't enough.

- After looking at the photo, there's no way I would take the 45-150mm along w/ the 14-42mm (and the 14mm and the 20mm), that's just too much.

- I'm still concerned about shutter shock on the 14-140mm since my camera doesn't have an e-shutter. Those of you who have this lens and use the lens shutter, have you experienced this, and how bad is it?

A couple of non prize winning, real life shots from our travel album taken by my wife's GF3 + 14-140M2 (her main lens) for your evaluation. Without searching for them, I never realize how difficult was it to pick up images within that culprit range of ss 1/60"~1/250".

GF3 + 14-140M2 @19mm, 1/80"

GF3 + 14-140M2 @92mm, 1/200"

GF3 + 14-140M2 @97mm, 1/200"

GF3+ 14-140M2 @92mm, 1/160"

They might not be as sharp as from 42.5 f/1.7, I believe they should not be classified as blur or soft to a totally unacceptable range. For general traveling photo, considering the price concerned (GF3 indeed is not expected to give the best IQ) and the convenience it gives, we are happy owners of the lens.

- I like the 42.5 f1.7, I will probably get it some day, but I'd like to travel w/ one zoom lens so I'm not going to consider this now

- 45-150mm is a cheaper option than the 14-140mm, and I'm not made of money, so cheaper is enticing. Could I do all I want to with the 14mm, 20mm, and 45-150mm? Keeping in mind that I use my 14mm 80-85% of the time. However it's nice to have the 14-42mm range sometimes.

- Does the 45-150mm lens also suffer from shutter shock?

- I noticed a 45-200mm and 45-175mm lens, also cheap, how do they compare?

- Also noticed a 35-100mm f4.0-5.6. Anybody have thoughts on this? This one might be a better combo w/ the 14mm and 20mm and it's still relatively inexpensive. I wouldn't get as much zoom but I don't have any lenses past 200mm on my D7100 and I find my 18-105mm to be a sufficient zoom. I rarely use the 55-200mm.

Also, just looking at lenses in general, the 12-35mm looks pretty awesome, but out of my price range right now. As long as I have the GF6, I'm looking at mostly panasonic lenses because it doesn't have the in-body image stabilization.

Thanks in advance for any advice

- 45-150mm is a cheaper option than the 14-140mm, and I'm not made of money, so cheaper is enticing. Could I do all I want to with the 14mm, 20mm, and 45-150mm? Keeping in mind that I use my 14mm 80-85% of the time. However it's nice to have the 14-42mm range sometimes.

- Does the 45-150mm lens also suffer from shutter shock?

Had forgot this part in my first response.

- I noticed a 45-200mm and 45-175mm lens, also cheap, how do they compare?

For travelling, who would know what to shoot. As every trip means money, time and energy if there is a shooting opportunity and we can't nail it because have left a lens back at home, it would be a big waste.

I must bring 7-14, 14-45, 45-200 with me (14-140M2, only lens of my wife) plus some others ensuring never miss any shooting chance for my every trip.

Like you, very long tele is not used often. The long end of 45-200 represents <5%~10% of my shots. It was so heavy and rare used that I questioned myself would the weight be justified to carry. I finally decided not to dropped that FL but replace it with a lighter one. 45-150 & 45-175PZ are highly on my list.

BTW, >150 of 45-200 would not be easy to get its best result. 45-150/45-175PZ doesn't has this problem and are both sharp at their longest reach.

- Also noticed a 35-100mm f4.0-5.6. Anybody have thoughts on this? This one might be a better combo w/ the 14mm and 20mm and it's still relatively inexpensive. I wouldn't get as much zoom but I don't have any lenses past 200mm on my D7100 and I find my 18-105mm to be a sufficient zoom. I rarely use the 55-200mm.

A very good tiny lens having been highly recommended by its users. But IMHO a bit too short.

Also, just looking at lenses in general, the 12-35mm looks pretty awesome, but out of my price range right now. As long as I have the GF6, I'm looking at mostly panasonic lenses because it doesn't have the in-body image stabilization.

Correct specially for smaller body like GFs.

Thanks in advance for any advice

sunshadow wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Read through your post. If you're looking for a very simple, but versatile travel kit, you really can't beat the 14-140mm and 20mm combo.

Those were my first M4/3 lenses (and a 7-14mm). My girlfriend uses the two with a GX1 and has been very happy with them.

The 14mm, 20mm and 42.5mm f1.7 would work well, but there's a lot of lens swapping involved. The 14-140mm eliminates that.

Consider looking for a used 14-140mm to save a bit.

Take a look at the original 14-140mm. It gets kind of a bum rap, but it's really very good and about half the cost of the version II. Yes, it's bigger and heavier and not quite as sharp on the long end, but because of its beefier construction you won't have to worry about shutter shock, which while it can be a real issue, is really over blown around here.

I was looking at used prices anyway. I don't have the money to buy two lenses new. So what was changed between the old and the new, save for the wider aperture on the new? And the size?

I have all the lenses you're looking at… 14mm, both versions of the 14-140mm and both versions of the 20mm.

The older 14-140mm f4.0-5.8 is bigger (62mm filter vs. 58mm) and heavier (460g vs. 265g). It's a bit softer at the long end than the newer version.

I shot with version 1 for a couple of years until I had my set of primes. Every time I've used it, I was always surprised with how good the image quality is. I bought version 2 for my girlfriend because she didn't like the size and weight of version 1. I've not bothered with comparisons. Either makes a great travel lens.

There's a lot to be said about cutting down on lens changes when traveling!

The thing to do is try them. I've seen version 1 for around $300 used. Version 2 is around $700 these days. A few months ago I saw it for $529, new! >ouch<

f2toms wrote:

The 35-100 is small (about 4 ounces and about 2 inches long). A fairly new lens that people are just finding out about. It has OIS. I am only waiting for price to fall. Every thing I have read is good (70 to 200 conversion ratio.

The 35-100mm is supposedly very good.

The 45-150mm is another alternative… more range and less expensive.