Lenses for M43

I have finally decided to get the M43 body (Panasonic GX8) and chose Panasonic 15mm lens as the first lens (I will be adding Panasonic 25mm lens soon). Now I am trying to find out a couple more lenses for me. Following are the choices and I am trying to get two lenses from this list

1) Panasonic 12-32mm

2) Panasonic 14-140mm

3) Panasonic 42.5mm

4) Panasonic or Olympus 40-150mm

The selection is very hard for the zoom lens. Since I am not going for expensive zooms like Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm, it is very tough to select a mid-level zoom lens. I might be using this lens for video as well. Originally I was planning on Panasonic 14-140mm, but I heard a lot of complaints that it is jittery and cannot be used for video.

Could someone please provide your recommendations and suggestions?

Regards,

emzee

emzee wrote:

I have finally decided to get the M43 body (Panasonic GX8) and chose Panasonic 15mm lens as the first lens (I will be adding Panasonic 25mm lens soon). Now I am trying to find out a couple more lenses for me. Following are the choices and I am trying to get two lenses from this list

1) Panasonic 12-32mm

2) Panasonic 14-140mm

3) Panasonic 42.5mm

4) Panasonic or Olympus 40-150mm

The selection is very hard for the zoom lens. Since I am not going for expensive zooms like Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm, it is very tough to select a mid-level zoom lens. I might be using this lens for video as well. Originally I was planning on Panasonic 14-140mm, but I heard a lot of complaints that it is jittery and cannot be used for video.

Could someone please provide your recommendations and suggestions?

Regards,

emzee

Well if you don't wanna go for the 12-35 2.8, then the 12-32 is the lens to get.

Very small and very sharp for a "cheap" zoom lens.

one zoom not on your list that I am delighted with the PL45-175.  OIS, internal focusing, power zoom as well as manual zoom, great for video.  I like it as a mid-level tele, and with a close up lens filter like the Minolta 0, great for closeup for butterflies, flowers when the Oly 60mm macro is just too much.

I love the 12-32 for it's size, IQ, and the fact that it goes noticeably wider than the rest... But if you also need Moore more reach it'd be a poor choice. I really like the 42.5 tho, which I got to replace the Oly 45...

It's got OIS so it's decently usable got video, and the closer focusing distance makes it a bit more versatile, in addition to being a great portrait FL obviously. I find people shots pretty effortless with it so I'd personally go for that and whichever zoom...

The 14-140 would be a good all arounder, potential video jitter issues aside. It's worth studying that if you're shooting handheld tho.

emzee wrote:

1) Panasonic 12-32mm

Probably the best regarded kit zoom in the whole system. A gem of a lens

2) Panasonic 14-140mm

I would personally not bother. But it really depends on your needs and shooting style.

4) Panasonic or Olympus 40-150mm

Instead of those, I would consider either 35-100/4.0-5.6 if you want really small, or 45-175/4.0-5.6 if you want better reach and better quality.

To sum it up. I'd go for one of those three configurations

1. 12-32 + 35-100 - for ultimate compactness
2. 12-32 + 45-175 - for a tiny walk-around kit (12-32) and a robust option when more reach is needed
3. 14-140 + 42.5/1.7 - one all-around lens and something for those bokehlicious shots

Astrotripper wrote:

emzee wrote:

1) Panasonic 12-32mm

Probably the best regarded kit zoom in the whole system. A gem of a lens

2) Panasonic 14-140mm

I would personally not bother. But it really depends on your needs and shooting style.

4) Panasonic or Olympus 40-150mm

Instead of those, I would consider either 35-100/4.0-5.6 if you want really small, or 45-175/4.0-5.6 if you want better reach and better quality.

To sum it up. I'd go for one of those three configurations

1. 12-32 + 35-100 - for ultimate compactness
2. 12-32 + 45-175 - for a tiny walk-around kit (12-32) and a robust option when more reach is needed
3. 14-140 + 42.5/1.7 - one all-around lens and something for those bokehlicious shots

Thanks. I am thinking of getting 12-32 + 35-100 (probably used one to save the money) and 42.5mm F1.7.

How good or bad is the 45-175mm lens? Heard that it is a lens with all kinds of issues - image quality, IS problems, build problems etc.

Regards,

emzee

9-18 + 12-32 + 42.5 + 35-100 is often my day or outdoors kit, covers just about everything for me. Often I'll leave behind the 35-100 or the 42.5 in favor of a fisheye tho, but I love that all those lenses are so so compact. If there was no 35-100 I'd probably have no tele longer than a 60mm.

How good or bad is the 45-175mm lens? Heard that it is a lens with all kinds of issues - image quality, IS problems, build problems etc.

Regards,

emzee

Perhaps I have an excellent sample but I love mine.  Compact, focuses fast and accurately on my GX7 or G5, love an internal zoom.  Power zoom is smooth and silent.

emzee wrote:

I have finally decided to get the M43 body (Panasonic GX8) and chose Panasonic 15mm lens as the first lens (I will be adding Panasonic 25mm lens soon). Now I am trying to find out a couple more lenses for me. Following are the choices and I am trying to get two lenses from this list

1) Panasonic 12-32mm

2) Panasonic 14-140mm

3) Panasonic 42.5mm

4) Panasonic or Olympus 40-150mm

The selection is very hard for the zoom lens. Since I am not going for expensive zooms like Panasonic 12-35mm or Olympus 12-40mm, it is very tough to select a mid-level zoom lens. I might be using this lens for video as well. Originally I was planning on Panasonic 14-140mm, but I heard a lot of complaints that it is jittery and cannot be used for video.

Could someone please provide your recommendations and suggestions?

Regards,

emzee

I must ask why you don't want to go for any of the f/2.8 pro lenses? They may cost more ($700+) but they are easily the most versatile, highest performing lenses, especially if you want to do more run-and-gun sort of video. Primes are fantastic, make no mistake, but the pro lenses do wide, they do short tele, they're fast and they're sharp, so it would make sense. They're also weathers sealed if that matters.

I would probably recommend that you steer clear of the superzooms such as the 14-140mm. They may be versatile, but their slow aperture combined with the middling ISO performance of m4/3 means that they won't be very good for low light at all.

The 12-32 is a cracker of a lens for its size, but it has no MF ring and if you were going for such a compact lens then you wouldn't be getting a GX8, a quite sizable camera. As a mid-level zoom, the kit 14-42mm will do a decent job if you want to save more money for primes.

emzee wrote:

justgo99 wrote:

I must ask why you don't want to go for any of the f/2.8 pro lenses? They may cost more ($700+) but they are easily the most versatile, highest performing lenses, especially if you want to do more run-and-gun sort of video. Primes are fantastic, make no mistake, but the pro lenses do wide, they do short tele, they're fast and they're sharp, so it would make sense. They're also weathers sealed if that matters.

I would probably recommend that you steer clear of the superzooms such as the 14-140mm. They may be versatile, but their slow aperture combined with the middling ISO performance of m4/3 means that they won't be very good for low light at all.

The 12-32 is a cracker of a lens for its size, but it has no MF ring and if you were going for such a compact lens then you wouldn't be getting a GX8, a quite sizable camera. As a mid-level zoom, the kit 14-42mm will do a decent job if you want to save more money for primes.

Thanks. 14-140 is now ruled out as I read many issues with that lens. For standard zoom, I am trying to find whether 12-32mm or 14-42mm II or the 14-45mm is the right one. I am planning to use them for sometime and then upgrade to F2.8 zooms later (if needed). The price of these 3 zoom lenses are the same range, but not sure which one to pick. I may not need the 12mm wide end. Other than that is there any advantage to 12-32mm in terms of image quality?

Regards,

emzee

I have the 14-45, and the Panasonic 14-42mm II, the 14-45mm is a great kit lens and can be picked up used at a good price. However I got the 14-42II along with the GX8 and it seems to be very close to the performance of the 14-45mm with the advantages of being smaller and lighter another advantage for the 14-42II is that it is compatible with the dual-IS of the GX8 , the 14-45mm lens is not.

The 12-32 and 42.5 f 1.7 are both excellent choices. Instead of the 40 - 150, take a look at the 45 - 175 or the 45 - 150. The first lens is a non-extending design and having the longer reach (350mm in 35mm terms) can be handy. It is also sharp. The 45 - 150 is inexpensive and a good performer.

My experience wit the 45-175 has been very good. I have used it on Panasonic bodies and I believe that it plays best with bodies from Panasonic.

When considering the 12-32, remember that it was manufactured for the GM1 and GM5 so it is a very small lens. The 35-100 mini is another lens that is aimed at the GM series. If you do not need the manual focus capability, the 12-32 is a sharp, lightweight lens. The 35-100 mini is also sharp and worth the money...as is the 42.5 1.7. Add those to the 15 1.7 and you will have a capable group of lenses. As for the 14-42 II, you should have no problems with that lens. I had the 14 - 45. It was the "kit" lens with the Panasonic G1. After acquiring the 14 - 42 II, I gave the original 14 - 45 to a friend and kept the newer and lighter lens. Either one will work well.

emzee wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

emzee wrote:

I have the 14-45, and the Panasonic 14-42mm II, the 14-45mm is a great kit lens and can be picked up used at a good price. However I got the 14-42II along with the GX8 and it seems to be very close to the performance of the 14-45mm with the advantages of being smaller and lighter another advantage for the 14-42II is that it is compatible with the dual-IS of the GX8 , the 14-45mm lens is not.

Thanks. Is the image quality of 14-45mm better than 14-42mm II lens? A lot of people have mentioned about the superior quality of 14-45mm and I am trying to find out whether the 14-42mm II matches that. The new 12-32mm is also in my consideration. The primary criteria being image quality.

Regards,

emzee

I think the 14-45mm is a wee bit better though not hugely so, I would also suggest that it has a bit better build quality, but the 14-42II wins for me due to the reasons above. I have no experience of the 12-32 though it seems to get decent reviews and it certainly wins on size.