Report: Usefulness of some Lenses Used during a Trip in Paris

I’m back from a second trip in a row in Paris.

Last year, I’ve taken 4378 colour photos in the French capital. The lenses used were these ones:
Lumix 7-14mm F/4,0 - 113 photos (3%)
M.Zuiko 12mm F/2,0 - 154 photos (3%)
M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2,8 - 4082 photos (93%)
M.Zuiko 40-150mm R - 29 photos (1%).

A standard zoom was, by far, the most useful lens that year.

This year, it was different. I brought some of my brightest lenses with me.

Lenses used (on top of the M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2,8)

I’ve taken 6060 colour photos (I’ve stayed a little longer). The lenses used were these ones:
M.Zuiko 8mm F/1,8 - 168 photos (3%)
M.Zuiko 7-14mm F/2,8 - 763 photos (13%)
M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2,8 - 2565 photos (42%)
PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 - 2292 photos (38%)
M.Zuiko 75mm F/1,8 - 272 photos (4%).

Conclusion: The use of a standard zoom was cut in half (from 93% to 42%) when brighter lenses were taken with me. The usefulness of an ultrawide zoom and telelens were 4 times greater when a brighter version of these lenses were available.

Each morning from my hotel room, I’ve published a summary (in French) of what I’ve seen the previous day. These articles were illustrated with 271 shots:
https://jpmartel.wordpress.com/category/recits-de-voyage/paris-ii/

Hello JPM. I spent some time looking through your Paris photos and I will say one thing: It was time well spent. What a city; a place like no other. I want to return. I have one curious question: with the wonderful IBIS on the E-M5, why shoot your lovely food shots at 1/60 with the PL 25 when you could possibly hand-hold them at 1/20 or 1/15 and reduce your ISO? Please believe me when I say this is curiosity and not criticism. The photos are excellent. I have the EM-10 mark II and I use the slower shutter speeds quite often as it is frequently dim light at this time of year in Latvia.

Thanks for the enjoyable tour.

I wonder how much of the increased use of the 7-14 was due to the fact that you were using it at f2.8 at 12-14mm instead of switching to the 12-40?

But the big one was your use of the wider aperture prime.

Very nice picture series -- I have forwarded the URL to my two daughters who visited Paris for a few days earlier this year and loved the city. Unfortunately, their time was limited since the main purpose of their trip to Europe was to be with their mother in Portugal.

I thought your food pix were a bit weak, though. For one thing, I like to see more of the plate/food in focus than your wide aperture allowed sometimes, and for another, there is a trick to casual food photography which I learned just this year from a travel writer/photographer on the train from Melbourne to Sydney.

I started a thread on this a couple of months ago. ait is not perfect but it is good way to add "life" to food pictures on the go.

Basically what you want is a good diffused front light -- a north facing window or whatever with no direct sunshine through it. You add a back/top light with a single flash shooting over the top of the food towards the camera.

In my set-up, I used the FL600R or the FL36R sitting on an upturned glass for the back/top light. For the front light, lacking a diffused natural litht, I had another flash on the camera with a makeshift diffuser (a paper napkin folded about 4 times and loosely fixed over the front of the flash with a ruber band).

The flash on the camera or the flip-up flash on the camera, triggered the back light flash.

The set up:

The camera was lower right -- directly in front of the plate.

The result:

I had re-arranged the food somewhat by the time I took this shot!

As you can see, the flash adds texture to the food and separates the elements. By no means perfect, but it takes moments to set up the flash and take the picture.

Well; worth it, in my view!

Jean-Pierre, keep the good pictures coming por favore! Oos, S'il vous plais! (That's about all I know of either language, and it’s probably incorrect! :))

Marriott wrote:

I have one curious question: with the wonderful IBIS on the E-M5, why shoot your lovely food shots at 1/60 with the PL 25 when you could possibly hand-hold them at 1/20 or 1/15 and reduce your ISO?

The upper ISO limit on my OM-D is set to 6400. Beside that, I usually see the ISO in my shots only when I post-process them. Otherwise, I thrust the decisions taken by the camera according to its algorithms.

Most of the shots taken at restaurant (all with the PL25) have an ISO of 200 to 320. The few ones taken at really high ISO were actually taken in unbelievely dark places.

Would these shots be better if I'd have selected a lower shutter speed? Yes, absolutely. I agree with you. But you wouldn't believe how lousy I get when I'm in vacation...  

A sidenote: if one clicks on the images on my blog in order to zoom on them, the higher resolution version have a better white balance (different colour space), than the smaller ones (made by WordPress for display purpose).

Thanks for the enjoyable tour.

You're welcome. Thanks for your comment.

Hen3ry wrote:

I wonder how much of the increased use of the 7-14 was due to the fact that you were using it at f2.8 at 12-14mm instead of switching to the 12-40?

Even if I've used the M.Zuiko 7-14mm F/2,8 four times more often than the Lumix 7-14mm F/4,0, I have to say that I'm not found of the output of rectilinear wide-angle lenses. Simply put: rectilinear ultra-wide lenses deform the space.

If the same subject is shot at 12mm with a standard zoom, with an ultra-wide rectilinear lens or with a 12mm prime lens, the results are different. Beside parallax, the result is more natural with a standard zoom or prime lens. An ultra-wide angle lens tends to stretch the sides of the image.

Of course, I guess that all that can be corrected during post-processing but if I can avoid it, I would.

I don't say that I didn't forget, once in a while, to switch to my standard zoom when I should, but as much as possible, the priority was to use the standard zoom.

The M.Zuiko 7-14mm was used  for 13% of my shots because there are so many outstanding ceilings in churches, museums and urban castles (called 'hôtels particuliers') in Paris that I think that this lens is essential for a trip in that city. And since these ceilings are usually not the best-lit part of a room or hall, a F/2,8 lens was more handy than a F/4,0 one.

The real surprise during this trip was how a fisheye could be handy in a city like Paris. It was used for 3% of my shots. Some of these were among the best ones taken during that trip.

I thought your food pix were a bit weak, though.

I had re-arranged the food somewhat by the time I took this shot!

Without any doubt, this photo of yours is better than all the food shots that I've taking during my whole life.

Flashes have a place in photography that I don't underestimate. But I'm not a "flash guy". I have almost never used one. I have no expertise on how to modulate their output.

During my vacations, all my shots are taken without a flash and without a tripod.

Photos taken during a trip are always the result of a compromise. The compromise is always between taking the time to do masterpieces or move quickly and document more touristic sites during the trip.

cupucupu wrote:

Great photos

I love 12-40 for travelling too (with EM1), and 17mm/1.8 with GX7. For tele I use Tamron 14-150, rarely use it though

Ultrazooms are handy for people who don't like to switch lenses or don't want to change lenses under dusty environment.

However, a fast teleprime (like the M.Zuiko 75mm F/1,8) is handy to take shots at glassworks located in the upper parts of a church, to focus on architectural details, or to zoom on stage performers (when your seat is distant from the scene).

Even if mine was used only 4% of the time, it's still 1 shot over 25 ones. I was glad to have it at hand.

The conclusion of my original post is simple: when you're traveling, the best gear to carry is composed of your brightest primes and zooms (if they are not too heavy).

Have not had a chance to look at your images yet, but was tempted to write now by your comment about the brighter M. Zuiko 7-14mm being used more often for interiors than the Panasonic 7-14mm would have been. And then you said, take brighter lenses if they are not too heavy. The M. Zeiko is certainly heavier than the Panasonic. Did you find that a problem?

For a "zoom guy" you must have really enjoyed the Panasonic 25 1.4 to have used it so often.

Look forward to your site.

F.

FrankS009 wrote:

Have not had a chance to look at your images yet, but was tempted to write now by your comment about the brighter M. Zuiko 7-14mm being used more often for interiors than the Panasonic 7-14mm would have been. And then you said, take brighter lenses if they are not too heavy. The M. Zeiko is certainly heavier than the Panasonic. Did you find that a problem?

The M.Zuiko 7-14mm F/2,8 is at the limit of my goodwill toward heavy and big lenses.

By far, the biggest problem with the M.Zuiko 7-14mm was its automatic/manual focussing toggle ring.

In a future article, I'll write about the effect of anti-terrorist measures implemented in museums in Paris on the best ways to carry lenses. In a nutshell, I had to carry lenses on me (inside different coat pockets) rather than in a backpack.

Because the M.Zuiko 7-14mm F/2,8 has an obvious triangular shape, it's very easy to pull or push that ring accidentally when it's taken in or out of a pocket. So I've missed many shots because it was put accidentally on manual mode.

If I had a suggestion to Olympus, it would be to implement the need to turn and push (or pull) that ring to change its focussing mode (like it's needed to do so with the hood on the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8).

For a "zoom guy" you must have really enjoyed the Panasonic 25 1.4 to have used it so often.

You know me very well, Frank; yes, I'm a zoom guy.

I was surprised to use the PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 so often. But the reason is simple; F/1,4 is four times brighter than F/2,8. An ISO 1600 shot becomes a ISO 400 shot when a four times brighter lens is used.

Since I never use a tripod during my vacations, I must rely on fast lenses.

By default, my M.Zuiko 12-40mm is set at 16mm (because it is at its smallest size at that focal length). So when I was about to take a shot with the M.Zuiko 12-40mm, my first question was: how does this subject looks at 25mm? So I'd zoom at 25mm.

And if that focal length was perfect, I'd switch without hesitation to the PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 except when the subject was over a bright-lit background (since the the PanLeica 25mm F/1,4 is my worst lens for chromatic aberration. I know that it's easy to correct during post-processing but I prefer to prevent rather than to cure CA).

For example, the Notre-Dame-de-Paris Treasure, the Quai Branly Museum, the Dapper Museum, the Madeleine Church, are very dark places. Fast lenses are a must inside places like that...

That's why even a dye-in-the-wool zoom guy like me had to use that fast prime so often.

Did you visit the same places in both trips?  Or similarly-themed places - e.g. different museums, cathedrals, etc but similar theme(indoor, lowlight) nonetheless.

Great shots BTW

addlightness wrote:

Did you visit the same places in both trips? Or similarly-themed places - e.g. different museums, cathedrals, etc but similar theme(indoor, lowlight) nonetheless.

Yes. Using better lenses gives you a pretext to go back at certain places in order to live anew the raw amazement and the pleasure that you had the first time that you were there. You're saying to yourself: "I have to go back. I'm sure that Ill take better shots with these lenses". But it's just a pretext. Deep inside, you know it but it's stronger than you.

I would say grosso modo that at least 75% the places that I went to this year, were places that I've not seen last year. About one quarter were short visits to improve my photo collection.

Great shots BTW

Thanks. And thanks for your reply.

cupucupu wrote:

Thanks for sharing

In my opinion bouncing the flash (the FL flash) on a sheet of paper or napkin etc right above the food would narrow the shadow on the plate and table, and also softening the shadow.

Controlling shadow is one of difficult parts of food photography, especially food on white plate

But it would defeat the purpose of adding the flash -- the edge definition and texture from the back light. I acknowledge the shadow but this is not a technique for perfect food photography, this is a Q&D, light weight solution that adds significantly to the liveliness of the food. This is a set up that takes a minute or two to implement and the same to take down.

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

I wonder how much of the increased use of the 7-14 was due to the fact that you were using it at f2.8 at 12-14mm instead of switching to the 12-40?

Even if I've used the M.Zuiko 7-14mm F/2,8 four times more often than the Lumix 7-14mm F/4,0, I have to say that I'm not found of the output of rectilinear wide-angle lenses. Simply put: rectilinear ultra-wide lenses deform the space.

If the same subject is shot at 12mm with a standard zoom, with an ultra-wide rectilinear lens or with a 12mm prime lens, the results are different. Beside parallax, the result is more natural with a standard zoom or prime lens. An ultra-wide angle lens tends to stretch the sides of the image.

So ou are saying the 7-14 @ 12 looks different from the 12-4o @ 12? That is curious!

….

I thought your food pix were a bit weak, though.

I had re-arranged the food somewhat by the time I took this shot!

Without any doubt, this photo of yours is better than all the food shots that I've taking during my whole life.

Using this technique, which I got on to only recently, I am taking the best food shots of my life too!

Flashes have a place in photography that I don't underestimate. But I'm not a "flash guy". I have almost never used one. I have no expertise on how to modulate their output.

I use flash a bit but I found thye Oly flahs control menus very confusing using the E-PL3. They are much more straightforward for the same effect in Panasonic.

During my vacations, all my shots are taken without a flash and without a tripod.

Photos taken during a trip are always the result of a compromise. The compromise is always between taking the time to do masterpieces or move quickly and document more touristic sites during the trip.

I too am traveling -- I am a peripatetic photographer and website developer here in the islands; my backpack with laptop, camera, three or so lenses, flash, mobile phone, and wireless (phone) modem, is my office and I have to carry it everywhere I go -- about 8kg.