Would you bother with the 12mm F2, 17mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 if you had the 12-40 f2.8 Pro?

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

I don't have the 12mm f/2 yet but have been considering it for astro (which I would rarely do ... but I like throwing all my money away).

I have the 7-14mm, 12-40mm, and 40-150mm PRO lenses and will take those whenever I'm going out specifically to shoot.  But I also have the 17mm, 25mm, and 45mm f/1.8 lenses which I typically use when I want to have a camera with me but I don't know if or how much I'll be shooting (or for street stuff).

All that said, I love having the fast primes because they're small, light, and inconspicuous.  The 45mm is a lot less obvious than the 12-40 at 40 or the 40-150 at anything when trying to get candid stuff.

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

No need to apologise about liking to get new gear; everyone on this forum is in the same boat

Not sure about the time frame - how long it took you to acquire all this gear - but you seem to have enough gear for the moment and certainly enough gear to answer the question of whether primes could play a role in your photography, or not. Stick the Panasonic 25 on the camera and see whether it doesn't provide a different shooting experience than your 12-40. You can always acquire a new prime later, but since you have that lens now see how you like it. The 40-150 "pro" is too expensive for FLs you use only occasional. Besides the 40-150 R is a pretty decent lens (particularly between 50-100 mm) in its own right.

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

I would, and have several times, yes.

When you're shooting for example indoors in low light, you want the fastest lens you can get your hands on. Since, after all, we all want that lower ISO and/or higher SS.

I'd take the f1.4 (or f1.2) panasonics, for example, over a 2.8 any day of the week if i were to shoot tight/semi-tight indoors in low light.

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

I own the 12-40 PRO, and recently purchased the 45mm f/1.8.  I find it to be a valuable addition to my lens arsenal, especially given the discounted price, and my experience thus far with it in low light situations.  And as for the 40-150 PRO and teleconverter, which I also own, well that one produces quite fine images.  With the exception of the 45mm and the 40-150 standard grade lens I just got today with a new in box E-P5 from Adorama for $399, all my eggs are in the PRO line up, including the ones above and the 7-14mm PRO.  That's all I am getting, money does not grow on trees.  

I have the 17mm, 45mm and 12-40 pro. I use the primes a lot. Smaller size and larger apertures are the obvious advantages,  while the zoom is more versatile. I think the 17mm is my most used lens.  I really like the FOV and to me the wider aperture is a very important advantage,  both because I shoot a lot indoors and like shallower DOF. The 45mm is the best choice when you are shooting portraits,  again shallower DOF is a huge advantage. Nevertheless,  in good light and when you will shoot variable subjects (in a trip,  for instance) the 12-40mm would be my choice.

And I would have also bought the 12mm if it weren't so expensive.

Given the fact that the 45mm f/1.8 is slightly beyond the reach of your 12-40mm, and is faster -- and I dare say, even a bit sharper -- and given that it is such a small, light, inexpensive lens, I would suggest that lens as a great addition to your 12-40mm.

You can get a brand new one from B&H for $299 -- that is a bargain.

It is outstanding for close up portraits.

To just buy the Triune of Pro lenses and be done with it

In practice, even though I own the 12-40mm and it 's served me well at times , most often I resort to the primes for lightweight carrying and unobtrusive street shooting, + low light and DOF separation effect

Besides, the 17mm and 45mm bokeh are more desirable than that of the 12-40mm

For all around walkabout I prefer the 14-150mm to the 40-150mm pro for the same reason, lightweight and small size

YMMV but for me the pro lenses stay home most of the time

You could get the PRO lenses and be happy with them .... unless gear lust gets to you

Cheers,

dv312 wrote:

To just buy the Triune of Pro lenses and be done with it

In practice, even though I own the 12-40mm and it 's served me well at times , most often I resort to the primes for lightweight carrying and unobtrusive street shooting, + low light and DOF separation effect

Besides, the 17mm and 45mm bokeh are more desirable than that of the 12-40mm

For all around walkabout I prefer the 14-150mm to the 40-150mm pro for the same reason, lightweight and small size

YMMV but for me the pro lenses stay home most of the time

You could get the PRO lenses and be happy with them .... unless gear lust gets to you

Cheers,

I could not have said it better myself! We think alike. With that said, I really like my 12mm for walking around at night. Just a great lens! I love the Pro series but many times I just like the light weight of the primes and the 14-150mm for daytime.

London November 2015, Harrods in the background

Would the primes serve any purposes that your 12-40 zoom cannot? They could give you lower ISOs in low light or a more shallow depth of field. Or is it that you just like to try different things? Primes have their place, but will only offer a certain amount of benefit over the 12-40 zoom at f/2.8.

I came at this the other way. Before the PRO zooms hit the market, I bought a set of primes for low light and greater subject isolation: the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, & 45/1.8. All have great IQ. Three of them are very pocketable and all are complementary to my zooms. So I take the primes and one or two zooms along on most trips. Or I leave the zooms at home and take just the primes.

I imagine if I were starting with the PRO zoom, I would still want at least one prime lens to go with it (that would be the 25/1.4). I'm not as sure that I would find much benefit in adding a full set of primes to take the place of the zoom - especially considering everything the PRO brings to the table: weather sealing, great sharpness, a single filter size, etc.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier, would you bother with a lens that weighs the same as some full frame lenses on a system inherently designed for system size/weight advantage. Inherently my answer is no.

Every time I walk into my local brick and mortar store there is a sales representative that tries to sell me the pro lenses, my resounding answer is the same answer every time. "Yeah, no, buddy, not interested." A couple things:

• I use F/1.7-F/1.8 for light advantage. F/1.8 gives me the same aperture control as F/3.6 http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2x-17mm-f1.8-and-1x-35mm-f3.6-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject. I don't want to start an equivalence debate it is what it is. It's already a pretty wide aperture so I can use it wide open, and it's equivalent to about 1 to 1.5stops of light advantage over F/5.6.
• I may have to reframe my shot a bit but F/3.6 is a completely usable aperture to shoot everything and all of the prime lenses I own work well wide open whether that's the 12/2, 20/1.7 or 45/1.8. The real world advantage is 1/60th of a second vs, 1/20th of a second hand held, with one you can stop motion with the other you can't at base ISO in less than average light.
• I use it for noise advantage, you need this for four thirds sensors also. Again you get a full stop to 1.5stops advantage. If you go the other way that's the difference between ISO400 and ISO800 in less than average light, or alternatively ISO3200 vs ISO6400 in really challenging situations.
• I use it for size advantage, sorry to reiterate but are you serious or kidding me? By the time you load up an E-M1 with a 12-40 let alone the 40-150 you're in the same weight/size territory as a Sony A7, and then what point is there to be shooting with a system that loses its footprint?
• I want to get close to the stage in a situation where I would be otherwise wrestling with people in a mosh pit environment with a long lens, I whip out my 20mm lens and get the shot.
• Some venues only allow lenses of certain sizes, the longer lenses from Micro Four Thirds especially the pro lenses may fall afoul of this.
• Finally, subject isolation, if all you ever want in the world is F/5.6 that's your choice also, sometimes people want less than F/4.

That about sumarises things right now, I really do like these kinds of threads out of a matter of bemusement simply because I don't agree with them, but that's about as much as I can say at the moment without offending anyone in particular so I'll leave it at that. I have a fairly sound reason why I won't be buying any of the pro lenses, you don't have to agree with me and that's your prerogative also.

EyeMac wrote:

I have the cheap 40-150mm that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300mm which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me.

My last thought is that I should get (...) the 40-150mm F/2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

If you almost never use the two telelenses that you already have, why would a different one makes a difference?

I love my 12-40 Pro and it is by far the most used of my lenses.  Next would be my 60 macro. Love the 75 f/1.8 but it sees limited use. The 40-150R was getting little use, but, I blamed that on it being slower to focus and lower aperture, so, bought the 40-150 Pro.  It was a fabulous lens, bright, fast, sharp, but, it felt too big and made my shooting experience feel less natural - so I returned it.  Got the 75-300 for even more range.  Have gotten some good shots with it and hope to get more on some planned trips.  Those trips will also involve lots of expansive landscape, so, I'm now planning to pick up the 7-14 Pro. But, that's me, YMMV.

It's a divergent opinion, but I'd rather carry the 12-32 or 9-18 and one of my fast primes. I wouldn't own an EM1 either. I bought M43 for the portability at the tradeoff of best image, so I will maximize the portability.

If I had the 12-40 and 40-150, I'd use them twice a year, for occasions where I'm also carrying a tripod. That would be the holiday family reunion photo (12-40) and the annual spring robin hatch (40-150).

Here's a different thought. What about the Olympus 75mm? I am blown away by the sharpness of this lens, and its speed. I can crop it and get images better than what the kit 40-150 can do at 70-150mm. Maybe it's even with the PRO version.

I already have the Panasonic 25mm 1.4. My next lens will be the 12-40mm to cover the wider end of things. I'm not particularly interested in any of the wide angle primes (12mm, 15mm, 17mm). My favorite out of those 3 would be the 15mm, but I'm not too fond of that focal length. So what I'll do instead is to get one or two primes to cover the longer side of things.

I'm thinking the Olympus 45mm and Sigma 60mm would fit the bill. I love their rendering from the pictures I've seen. Plus, they're very inexpensive and light to boot.

In total, one zoom, three primes. I'll mix and match them depending on the intended use.

EyeMac wrote:

Sad but true, buying a new lens tends to get me motivated to go out and take more photographs!

I have the 12-40 f2.8 pro that stays on my camera pretty much full time. I have the 9-18 that I use occasionally. I also have the cheap Panasonic 25 f1.7 that I bought for $99, I'm not too fussed about this one so it might go but there are loads on the online markets so not worth much. I have the cheap 40-150 that gets occasional use. My last lens is the 75-300 which is rarely used and seems like a bit of a white elephant for me. I am tempted to sell the 75-300 to get either the 12, 17 or 45 but not convinced I will use it!

My last thought is that I should ditch the 9-18, 25, 40-150 and 75-300 and get the 40-150 f2.8 pro plus the teleconverter that is fore sale reasonably on an online trade site!

Would you put all your eggs in the two 'Pro' zoom basket?

I borrowed the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 for a weekend and liked them both. I didn't find the 45/1.8 offered me a lot more than my 12-40, so I will hold out for something better. The 17/1.8 was really a treat to use, and worked nicely on either the E-M5 or E-PM2. But since I had a 12-32 and 7.5mm FE that share duty on the E-PM2, I don't really *need* it, and it's a bit more than I can justify for the amount of use it would get. Although I always wanted the FT 9-18, the FE + 12-40 combo does a pretty decent job covering the range for me. I doubt I would use the 75-300 much either - too slow. So if I had the chance to clear out some lesser used lenses to get the 40-150/2.8 + TC I would certainly consider it. A fast, sharp, weathersealed 2 lens kit from 12-210 is a pretty nice set up, but I'd be looking for another w/s body to go with it.

The used value of the 40-150R is so low I'd keep it and give to a friend or kid instead, probably the same for the 25/1.7 which I also have but rarely use.

I don't quite understand threads saying "should I buy lens X?" Only you know your shooting needs and desires and feelings about lenses. For example, I have the 17mm and 45mm and the 25mm is on its way, because I don't like the size and weight of the 12-40, and because I find the dof equivalent of 5.6 on FF to be pretty boring.

biggles266 wrote:

I don't quite understand threads saying "should I buy lens X?" Only you know your shooting needs and desires and feelings about lenses. For example, I have the 17mm and 45mm and the 25mm is on its way, because I don't like the size and weight of the 12-40, and because I find the dof equivalent of 5.6 on FF to be pretty boring.

You're quite right, it's a personal thing. I have limited experience with different lenses compared to some people here, so I enjoy reading their feedback on questions like this, and will often check out the type of photography they do to get an idea of what the lens does for their style of work.

I like the idea of small, sharp, fast lenses, but I rarely find time to take photos, so having a bag of primes like the 12-40 ready to go works for me now. I can usually achieve enough selective focus when I want to, and often need to stop down to f/8 or smaller to get the DOF I need. When I retire, I'd love to have some primes. But none of them would have survived the dousing my 12-40/E-M5 got taking a set at this location on Sunday...

It's time for more weathersealed primes in the system...