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

erichK wrote:

Each to his or her own...but there are indeed very good reasons why zoom lenses have become so popular even with "real pros".

Well, I'll reiterate this, the objective doesn't suit my needs. It's not that I can't see where the 12-40 would be beneficial, I'm just completely disinterested by it, I've had it out and on camera bodies a few times now. The sales people at my local camera store perhaps think I'm a little daft for not seeing the benefits yet. It's a sharp lens, it just doesn't meet my needs in terms of weight and also in terms of light gather.

There are no real advantages to me to that lens, in fact there are a significant detractors I've listed above and so the lens doesn't make sense to me. At least, I should say, not with Micro Four Thirds. Maybe as I've said elsewhere if I were knee deep in a Sony E mount system by now as I almost was at one point where I could have bought a NEX-5R or a NEX-7 I'd be a bit more open to it. Maybe if they had a couple of decent zoom objectives, faster than F/4 I'd have bought in, but we can talk all night/day about ifs and buts.

I'll reiterate, the zooms don't suit the format, F/5.6 does nothing for me, F/4 is at the boundaries of not having shallow depth of field, it's also at the boundaries of not having enough light gather either in real world terms, not to mention not enough noise control.

If I was stuck shooting with the 2.8 zoom and the better part of my low light shots were coming out at IS1600 ISO3200 I'd be disappointed by the system. Meanwhile, I set up single handed in the mosh pit of a festival and click away quite happily.

I just don't see why people are jumping up and down and hooting and hollering about what to be frank is a slow and noisy objective. If it were any other camera system you'd be told in no uncertain terms to get a grip of your mental faculties. I can see that the anti-equivalence threads have gone to certain peoples heads though every time I post in this forum. Meanwhile I shoot low light for fun, so I'm out in the cold. Some nights and mornings quite literally.

Not to labor the point of my shooting style but yeah, the 12-40 just doesn't suit me. Not in size, or weight, or speed, or light gather.

NCV wrote:

One you have a good 2.8 zoom, the primes within that range are in the real world of actually taking pictures redundant. Full stop.

Keep the 100-300 one can do some very creative stuff with it.

-- hide signature --

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

Simply not true, for me at least.

EyeMac wrote:

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 love my 12-40mm f/2.8. It's on my E-M5 more than any other lens. I also really want the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, but lack of funds will keep those out of reach for a while. I still have my Nikon D200 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. Wish I could sell them for enough to buy the Oly Pro telephotos!

Even if I had the 40-150mm f/2.8, I would not put all my eggs in the pro zoom basket for a couple of reasons:

• f/1.7-f/1.8 is still a stop and a half faster than f/2.8. That's huge when shooting in really low light conditions. It also blurs the background a little more, although not by much.
• Size and weight

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 is more portable than my old Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, it's still a beast of a lens by m4/3 standards. There are still times when I prefer to walk around with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

I would not get rid of my 9-18mm because 9mm is much wider than 12mm. I also have the Rokinon fisheye. Sometimes I leave the 12-40mm at home and take the 9-18mm, fisheye, 20mmf /1.7 and 45mm f/1.8. Other times it's my 9-18mm, 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7. Just depends on what I'm out shooting.

Most of the time I carry some variation of that kit in a small shoulder bag (Thinktank Retrospective 5), but when I plan to shoot telephoto I will sometimes put my Nikon with 80-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4 in a backpack along with the E-M5 and a few wide to normal lenses. Most of the time I leave the Nikon gear at home for obvious reasons, and the 45-200mm is my telephoto. In considering an upgrade, I have wondered if the 75-300mm might be the better option for me anyway (over the 40-150mm) because it offers portability. It has more reach and better IQ than my 45-200mm, and on sunny days it is fast enough. The problem is that here in the regularly overcast Pacific NW the 40-150mm f2/.8 (or the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8) would be very useful as long as I'm willing to carry it.

Sean

NCV wrote:

One you have a good 2.8 zoom, the primes within that range are in the real world of actually taking pictures redundant. Full stop.

Don't you mean "full stop and a half?" Because that's how much faster the typical prime is 

I know it seems redundant, but there are times when I would rather carry around the E-M5 with a small prime attached, and other times when I need the extra stop and a half. I take a lot of photos of our kids indoors at night. f/1.8 lets me shoot at a significantly lower ISO.

If you rarely find yourself needing to shoot moving subjects under such low light (and wanting to do so without flash), then yes... it is quite possible you may never use the primes again. Even though the 12-40mm is heavier and bulkier, the convenience of a zoom is nice to have. I also use the Lfn function button on the lens, and the manual focus ring on the 12-40mm is far better than manually focusing a lens like the 45mm f/1.8.

Sean

sean000 wrote:

EyeMac wrote:

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 love my 12-40mm f/2.8. It's on my E-M5 more than any other lens. I also really want the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, but lack of funds will keep those out of reach for a while. I still have my Nikon D200 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. Wish I could sell them for enough to buy the Oly Pro telephotos!

Even if I had the 40-150mm f/2.8, I would not put all my eggs in the pro zoom basket for a couple of reasons:

• f/1.7-f/1.8 is still a stop and a half faster than f/2.8. That's huge when shooting in really low light conditions. It also blurs the background a little more, although not by much.
• Size and weight

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 is more portable than my old Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, it's still a beast of a lens by m4/3 standards. There are still times when I prefer to walk around with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

I would not get rid of my 9-18mm because 9mm is much wider than 12mm. I also have the Rokinon fisheye. Sometimes I leave the 12-40mm at home and take the 9-18mm, fisheye, 20mmf /1.7 and 45mm f/1.8. Other times it's my 9-18mm, 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7. Just depends on what I'm out shooting.

Most of the time I carry some variation of that kit in a small shoulder bag (Thinktank Retrospective 5), but when I plan to shoot telephoto I will sometimes put my Nikon with 80-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4 in a backpack along with the E-M5 and a few wide to normal lenses. Most of the time I leave the Nikon gear at home for obvious reasons, and the 45-200mm is my telephoto. In considering an upgrade, I have wondered if the 75-300mm might be the better option for me anyway (over the 40-150mm) because it offers portability. It has more reach and better IQ than my 45-200mm, and on sunny days it is fast enough. The problem is that here in the regularly overcast Pacific NW the 40-150mm f2/.8 (or the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8) would be very useful as long as I'm willing to carry it.

Sean

I'm in a similar situation (and location) - I've considered the 75-300 since FT days, but held off due to the speed and softness at the long end. I've also looked the Pany 100-300, but I suspect the 100-400 might just be the answer if and when I decide to jump into a serious telephoto. My 40-150R rarely gives me the IQ I want, so I don't use it much.

zuikowesty wrote:

sean000 wrote:

EyeMac wrote:

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 love my 12-40mm f/2.8. It's on my E-M5 more than any other lens. I also really want the 40-150mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, but lack of funds will keep those out of reach for a while. I still have my Nikon D200 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4. Wish I could sell them for enough to buy the Oly Pro telephotos!

Even if I had the 40-150mm f/2.8, I would not put all my eggs in the pro zoom basket for a couple of reasons:

• f/1.7-f/1.8 is still a stop and a half faster than f/2.8. That's huge when shooting in really low light conditions. It also blurs the background a little more, although not by much.
• Size and weight

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 is more portable than my old Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, it's still a beast of a lens by m4/3 standards. There are still times when I prefer to walk around with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake.

I would not get rid of my 9-18mm because 9mm is much wider than 12mm. I also have the Rokinon fisheye. Sometimes I leave the 12-40mm at home and take the 9-18mm, fisheye, 20mmf /1.7 and 45mm f/1.8. Other times it's my 9-18mm, 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7. Just depends on what I'm out shooting.

Most of the time I carry some variation of that kit in a small shoulder bag (Thinktank Retrospective 5), but when I plan to shoot telephoto I will sometimes put my Nikon with 80-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4 in a backpack along with the E-M5 and a few wide to normal lenses. Most of the time I leave the Nikon gear at home for obvious reasons, and the 45-200mm is my telephoto. In considering an upgrade, I have wondered if the 75-300mm might be the better option for me anyway (over the 40-150mm) because it offers portability. It has more reach and better IQ than my 45-200mm, and on sunny days it is fast enough. The problem is that here in the regularly overcast Pacific NW the 40-150mm f2/.8 (or the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8) would be very useful as long as I'm willing to carry it.

Sean

I'm in a similar situation (and location) - I've considered the 75-300 since FT days, but held off due to the speed and softness at the long end. I've also looked the Pany 100-300, but I suspect the 100-400 might just be the answer if and when I decide to jump into a serious telephoto. My 40-150R rarely gives me the IQ I want, so I don't use it much.

The Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is definitely the right size for daily carry, but 100mm is a bit short in the telephoto department. Still, it's enough reach for using as an outdoor portrait and action lens when photographing my kids and my wife.... and since it starts at 35mm the zoom range would be very useful for people and events. I think the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro with a teleconverter would be my pick for versatility (getting long enough for some bird and wildlife shots), but it's a bigger lens to carry. At lease it would be a bit lighter on the backpack than my current Nikon teles.

I have been impressed with what the 75-300 can do on a good day and with enough light. It seems like it would be an upgrade to my 45-200mm. I just haven't gotten around to it because the 45-200mm is usually quite good for the situations I use it in. I guess for now the easiest thing for my budget would be to stick with the gear I've got

Sean