Olympus E-M1 w/ 12-40 as a travel camera?

[MiikeS1]

Hi all,

I will be travelling for 3 months in Asia at the start of the new year. I am looking to pick up a kit that is light weight (relative to DSLR), weather sealed, has accurate AF and plenty of physical controls/customization options.

I currently shoot a Pentax DSLR with a 16-50 2.8 lens that is weather sealed. However, the Olympus EM-1 with the comparable focal length 12-40 2.8 weighs 13 ounces less and would allow me to bring a more compact tripod as well for travel (looking at the MeFOTO backpacker).

I am thinking of buying the EM-1 with the 12-40 2.8 to complement a Ricoh GR and a 20mm 1.7 pancake lens that I already own as a travel kit. Would you recommend a different combination instead of the Olympus M-1 or lens? Any other lenses worth looking into for travel photography? My budget is around $1500 for body and lens (I plan on buying both used).

Thanks!

 

[Alohaman]

I took my E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 to France in April 2015 along with a Panasonic GX-7. Oly 17/1.8 and 40-150/4.0-5.6. Traveled through Paris (mainly) and to Giverny, Normandy Beach, Versailles. Used the E-M1 and 12-40 zoom about 90% of the time and the GX-7 + 17/1.8 as a small walk around when going out to dinner. Can't remember if I ever used the telephoto zoom.

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

 

[Jim Salvas]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

 

[Harold66]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

--

With all due respect , I think "ripped apart" is a little bit dramatic ;-)

In any case if the OP needs another lens for shooting at a wider angle it seems to me he has a cheaper and simpler option by getting the Gw3 attachment for his GR which will give me a 21mm FOV and is cheap even new ($170 new so I assume he could find it for $100 or less for a used one)

Harold

 

[DonParrot]

I haven't read the entire thread so sorry if this already has been mentionend but if you wouldn't mind the dose of extra weight I'd recomend the ZD 12-60 SWD 2.8-4.0 as its a far more versatile lens. Purchased the 12-40 with my E-M1 two years ago and sold it after two weeks as I refard it as just too short for a standard lens. In addition, I am of the opinion that all the µFT lenses apart from the m.zuiko 12 2.0, the m.Zuiko 17 1.8, the Nocticton 42.5 1.2, the Summilux 25 1.4 amd the m.Zuiko 75 1.8 were designed wit the focus set far too much on sharpness while the FT lenses provide a clearly better balanced IQ.

Add the 40-150 R that provides outstanding IQ for the few bucks you have to pay for it and you're done.

 

[Harold66]

The OP clearly mentions that weight was an issue . Otherwise he would use his Pentax APS 16-50mm zoom and camera

In addition , your claim about the 4/3lens having better IQ and which m4/3rds put the emphasis on sharpness is not really substantiated for the most part by the tests on the net

But again it does not matter because it is the opposite of what the OP was looking for

Harold

 

[DonParrot]

The OP clearly mentions that weight was an issue . Otherwise he would use his Pentax APS 16-50mm zoom and camera

Why? I also switched from FT to µFT due to weight issues. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean that I only opt for the lightest lense availalble. And I didn't. I purchased the 12-40, compared it with my 12-60 SWD - and sold it. From my point of view, it has hot just pone advamtage over the 12:60 SWD: it has lesss problems when it comes to AF-ing in low light. But that was that.

If you want to cover the range from 12 to 60mm at top class IQ it won't come any lighter than this. And if you don't mind top IQ you can opt for the m.Zuiko 12-50 that still is more versatile and far lighter than the 12-40. There is no doubt that the 12-40 Pro is an outstanding lens, and for those, who are happy with a limited focal range it may be the perfect solution. But if you want a little bit more focal range. the 12-60 is the way to go. And even more so as it can be purchased as used lens for ridiculously low prices.

In addition , your claim about the 4/3lens having better IQ and which m4/3rds put the emphasis on sharpness is not really substantiated for the most part by the tests on the net

How could it? The testers were the ones that put more and more emphasis on sharpness, in recent years. And in addition, we are talking about things that can't be measured - they only can be seen. What is a huge problem in these measurebator days.

But again it does not matter because it is the opposite of what the OP was looking for

No it isn't. It's the best lens available in this range for the E-M1. And if minimum weight was the issue, shouldn't you have recommended the Lumic 12-35 2.8?

Yes, the FT lens it's heavier than the 12-40 but not über-heavy. And with a focal range that exceeds the one of the 12-40 by more than 40 percent, a little extra weight should be allowed, shouldn't it?
But at the end of the day, it's up to the OP to make his decision...

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

 

[Miron09]

just bought an EPl7 for USD 200. Lenses: 4-5.6 40 150 for USD 99 (very good and light), Lumix 14mm (200 USD), Lumix 25mm for 99 USD

 

[Miron09]

agree. You can be robbed everywhere. I like MFT because you can select very cheap gear and still get good results. My son has a Lumix GF 3 (USD 30)

 

[Harold66]

But at the end of the day, it's up to the OP to make his decision...

--

Well, here is at least one thing we can agree on

H

 

[jeffharris]

agree. You can be robbed everywhere. I like MFT because you can select very cheap gear and still get good results.

M4/3 gear, because of it's size, pretty much flies under the radar.

I carry my camera all the time and also travel abroad often. It's always out. The graphics are covered with black electrical tape. I never carry a "camera bag", opting for separate lens cases in inconspicuous mountaineering bags.

 

[Littleted]

I took my E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 to France in April 2015 along with a Panasonic GX-7. Oly 17/1.8 and 40-150/4.0-5.6. Traveled through Paris (mainly) and to Giverny, Normandy Beach, Versailles. Used the E-M1 and 12-40 zoom about 90% of the time and the GX-7 + 17/1.8 as a small walk around when going out to dinner. Can't remember if I ever used the telephoto zoom.

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Exactly my view too this is why the 7 - 14 looks like my next investment...flippin expensive lol

 

[MatsP]

Jim

The budget primes I'd consider are the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye and/or the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. Each is selling now for about $200.

Hardly a good choice for someone who wants to travel light !

i do not think those focal lengths are that useful for 99.99% users

H

 

[jeffharris]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

The 7.5mm fisheyes are okay lenses… I have a Rokinon 7.5mm… but you've got to admit they're specialist (I would say novelty) lenses and certainly not as useful as more general purpose lenses such as a fast prime or a rectilinear ultra-wide.

Unless one is willing (or even able) to develop the skill of using a fisheye… plus learning and spending the time to de-fish… it's not really a great recommendation and definitely not as your only optional travel lens. It would be fine to carry in addition to a fast prime like a 17mm, 20mm or 25mm, but not instead of.

For the wide end, lacking any relatively affordable ultra-wide primes, I'd recommend a 7-14mm or a 9-18mm as a lens to augment a typical zoom before I'd ever recommend a fisheye.

B&H is selling the 7-14mm f4 for just under $700 right now! The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is $99!

 

[G1Houston]

Why not consider the Lumix 12-35 2.8. It is much lighter and smaller and the image quality is about the same as the 14-40.

Most of the stuff on my blog was shot with an EM5 + 12-35.

 

[G1Houston]

Jim

The budget primes I'd consider are the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye and/or the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. Each is selling now for about $200.

Hardly a good choice for someone who wants to travel light !

i do not think those focal lengths are that useful for 99.99% users

H

 

[Jim Salvas]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

The 7.5mm fisheyes are okay lenses… I have a Rokinon 7.5mm… but you've got to admit they're specialist (I would say novelty) lenses and certainly not as useful as more general purpose lenses such as a fast prime or a rectilinear ultra-wide.

Unless one is willing (or even able) to develop the skill of using a fisheye… plus learning and spending the time to de-fish… it's not really a great recommendation and definitely not as your only optional travel lens. It would be fine to carry in addition to a fast prime like a 17mm, 20mm or 25mm, but not instead of.

For the wide end, lacking any relatively affordable ultra-wide primes, I'd recommend a 7-14mm or a 9-18mm as a lens to augment a typical zoom before I'd ever recommend a fisheye.

B&H is selling the 7-14mm f4 for just under $700 right now! The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is $99!

Jeff, the OP has a budget of $1500. That puts the 7-14 out of reach. The 25mm adds nothing to the available focal lengths and only 1-1/3 stop over the 12-40.

Once you learn to use it, and to easily de-fish some shots in Lightroom, the 7.5 can be a fantastic second lens, especially considering its cost.

the three lenses which I use most are, in order, the 12-40, the 75, for headshots and the 7.5, for architectural and landscapes.

 

[Harold66]

Jim

The budget primes I'd consider are the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye and/or the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. Each is selling now for about $200.

Hardly a good choice for someone who wants to travel light !

i do not think those focal lengths are that useful for 99.99% users

H

 

[jeffharris]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

The 7.5mm fisheyes are okay lenses… I have a Rokinon 7.5mm… but you've got to admit they're specialist (I would say novelty) lenses and certainly not as useful as more general purpose lenses such as a fast prime or a rectilinear ultra-wide.

Unless one is willing (or even able) to develop the skill of using a fisheye… plus learning and spending the time to de-fish… it's not really a great recommendation and definitely not as your only optional travel lens. It would be fine to carry in addition to a fast prime like a 17mm, 20mm or 25mm, but not instead of.

For the wide end, lacking any relatively affordable ultra-wide primes, I'd recommend a 7-14mm or a 9-18mm as a lens to augment a typical zoom before I'd ever recommend a fisheye.

B&H is selling the 7-14mm f4 for just under $700 right now! The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is $99!

Jeff, the OP has a budget of $1500. That puts the 7-14 out of reach. The 25mm adds nothing to the available focal lengths and only 1-1/3 stop over the 12-40.

1 1/3 stop is still 1 1/3 stop. Using lower ISOs and faster shutter speeds are almost always preferable.

A Mitakon 25mm f0.95 might be good option for low light within the OPs budget.

Once you learn to use it, and to easily de-fish some shots in Lightroom, the 7.5 can be a fantastic second lens, especially considering its cost.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Lose a stop+ AND have the PITA hassle of de-fishing? No thanks.

On a recent trip to Morocco, my girlfriend and I shot about 4500 images. Just over 900 were from the 7-14mm. I can't imagine wading through them to de-fish. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. What a FPITA.

I've said this before, but it seems for almost every lens suggestion request, there's the inevitable M4/3 forum equivalent of Godwin's Law: the fisheye recommendation. Fine, they're cheap and sharp, but certainly a specialty lens.

the three lenses which I use most are, in order, the 12-40, the 75, for headshots and the 7.5, for architectural and landscapes.

My travel kit is the 7-14mm, 12-40mm (daytime and convenience) and Voigtländer 75mm f2.5 For low light and optimum image quality, the Voigtländer 17.5mm and sometimes the Voigtie 42.5mm.

 

[Jim Salvas]

The only problem with the 12-40 is that in cathedrals/museums and narrow streets the zoom sometimes isn't wide enough. A lens that is MFT 8mm would be useful.

Good idea, but I was ripped apart a little further up this thread for suggesting something similar when I mentioned traveling with the 12-40 and a Samyang 7.5mm fisheye.

The 7.5mm fisheyes are okay lenses… I have a Rokinon 7.5mm… but you've got to admit they're specialist (I would say novelty) lenses and certainly not as useful as more general purpose lenses such as a fast prime or a rectilinear ultra-wide.

Unless one is willing (or even able) to develop the skill of using a fisheye… plus learning and spending the time to de-fish… it's not really a great recommendation and definitely not as your only optional travel lens. It would be fine to carry in addition to a fast prime like a 17mm, 20mm or 25mm, but not instead of.

For the wide end, lacking any relatively affordable ultra-wide primes, I'd recommend a 7-14mm or a 9-18mm as a lens to augment a typical zoom before I'd ever recommend a fisheye.

B&H is selling the 7-14mm f4 for just under $700 right now! The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is $99!

Jeff, the OP has a budget of $1500. That puts the 7-14 out of reach. The 25mm adds nothing to the available focal lengths and only 1-1/3 stop over the 12-40.

1 1/3 stop is still 1 1/3 stop. Using lower ISOs and faster shutter speeds are almost always preferable.

A Mitakon 25mm f0.95 might be good option for low light within the OPs budget.

Once you learn to use it, and to easily de-fish some shots in Lightroom, the 7.5 can be a fantastic second lens, especially considering its cost.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Lose a stop+ AND have the PITA hassle of de-fishing? No thanks.

On a recent trip to Morocco, my girlfriend and I shot about 4500 images. Just over 900 were from the 7-14mm. I can't imagine wading through them to de-fish. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. What a FPITA.

I've said this before, but it seems for almost every lens suggestion request, there's the inevitable M4/3 forum equivalent of Godwin's Law: the fisheye recommendation. Fine, they're cheap and sharp, but certainly a specialty lens.

the three lenses which I use most are, in order, the 12-40, the 75, for headshots and the 7.5, for architectural and landscapes.

My travel kit is the 7-14mm, 12-40mm (daytime and convenience) and Voigtländer 75mm f2.5 For low light and optimum image quality, the Voigtländer 17.5mm and sometimes the Voigtie 42.5mm.

Jeff, the PITA de-fishing to which you refer is two clicks in Lightroom, with the presets. Very few shots need a trip to another editor.

i leave many fisheye shots alone, as the rectilinear conversion brings its own distortions, just as it does with a lens such as the 7-14. A wide angle rectilinear lens is doing the de-fishing internally, stretching the image at the edges in order to make everything look straight. In the process, an object at the edge gets to appear much larger than one at the center, even though they are at the same distance.

in the end, it's a matter of taste. It's good to have the choice.

 

[Art_P]

What I do to avoid temptation is not bring a camera bag.

If I'm not shooting, I'll take the lens off and body and lens go in separate pockets... out of sight, out of mind (of potential theft)

Carrying a camera bag is advertising you have something worth stealing, Leaving that bag unattended is an open invitation.

Basically anywhere there are tourists, there will be people looking for an easy score.

If the OP is worried about the potential of losing an expensive camera and lens, he might opt for an E-M5, which will deliver most of the bang of the newer bodies at a much lower cost. Add a used 12-50. Add a prime or two, easily pocketed out of sight

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"