I guess I'm still having second thoughts on the lenses setup

Hello!

As I've explained before , I'm moving from DSRL to M43, and I'm looking for a initial set of lenses.

I have the current setup in mind:

- OM-D E-M5 II;

- Oly 12-40 PRO;

- Oly 75-300 II;

- Oly 45mm 1.8.

The 12-40 is a no-brainer, it's my first choice and I'll stick to it.

The 75-300 II came to replace the 40-150 R, in order to give me more room to try some telephoto shots.

The 45mm 1.8 is becoming the elephant in the room. I love the shots, the sharpness all along the frame, but I'm worried about the space needed to shoot with her indoors.

My first choice for primes was the O17, but I've read a lot of reviews about the expected sharpness that was never delivered. Plus, I didn't want to overlap ranges, as I'll get the 12-40, too.

I also read about the old faithful P20 1.7, but focus hunting in low light is an issue that worries me, as the reported noise when focusing.

I know that primes and zooms are two different things, but I'd really like to add a wide or mid-wide prime to my future setup.

What to do? Which prime to get? Should I stick to the 45? How does she handle street photography? too narrow?

Thank you in advance!

LS

If working distance worries you, the PL 42.5 can focus closer than the Oly 45.

My Canon 85mm f1.8 is one of my favorite lenses but I'd never consider to carry it with me as my single lens for general walk-around shooting because that focal length is fairly tight. Some people prefer 30mm, some prefer 35mm, some prefer 40mm, some prefer 50mm (all ff equivalent), it mostly comes down to personal preference.

Take a look at the Panasonic 15 1.7.  It is very sharp, no problem with low light shots and it is not too heavy.  Very well made and one of the Pana lenses which are endorsed by Leica.  The aperture ring, which I find very handy, is not functional on Olympus bodies but it is controlled through the body just like the native Olympus lenses.  Excellent lens and wide enough for indoor use.  There is also the 12mm f2 Olympus, but I have no first hand experience with it.  If you are shooting in really cramped interiors, that may be a consideration.

LMNCT wrote:

There is also the 12mm f2 Olympus, but I have no first hand experience with it. If you are shooting in really cramped interiors, that may be a consideration.

I own both the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 12mm f/2, and I never have both with me at the same time. There are situations where I prefer the prime (faster, smaller), other situations where I prefer the zoom (more flexible, weather sealed), but carrying both at the same time is unnecessary. And as a consequence, buying both as part of a three lens setup is unnecessary, too, I think.

I do like the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 a lot. It's not the sharpest lens there is, and yet it does outresolve the sensor (but not high-res shots of the E-M5ii) in my experience. Handling and size are great; I often use that one indoors or for family and street shooting.

TyphoonTW wrote:

If working distance worries you, the PL 42.5 can focus closer than the Oly 45.

The 1.7 or the more expensive 1.2? Anyway, it is good to know I have some pana alternative. I know you are a Canon shooter, but do you know how the oly body handle the pana lens?

My Canon 85mm f1.8 is one of my favorite lenses but I'd never consider to carry it with me as my single lens for general walk-around shooting because that focal length is fairly tight. Some people prefer 30mm, some prefer 35mm, some prefer 40mm, some prefer 50mm (all ff equivalent), it mostly comes down to personal preference.

Yes, I get your point, that's why I'm planning to use the 12-40 2.8 PRO as my everyday lens, but I've spent a lot of time shooting on my D5200 with a 35mm (52 on FF).

My heart says O17mm, but my mind says otherwise: O45 or P42.5, since it won't overlap the PRO range.

TY!

LS

sellera wrote:

TyphoonTW wrote:

If working distance worries you, the PL 42.5 can focus closer than the Oly 45.

The 1.7 or the more expensive 1.2? Anyway, it is good to know I have some pana alternative. I know you are a Canon shooter, but do you know how the oly body handle the pana lens?

My Canon 85mm f1.8 is one of my favorite lenses but I'd never consider to carry it with me as my single lens for general walk-around shooting because that focal length is fairly tight. Some people prefer 30mm, some prefer 35mm, some prefer 40mm, some prefer 50mm (all ff equivalent), it mostly comes down to personal preference.

Yes, I get your point, that's why I'm planning to use the 12-40 2.8 PRO as my everyday lens, but I've spent a lot of time shooting on my D5200 with a 35mm (52 on FF).

My heart says O17mm, but my mind says otherwise: O45 or P42.5, since it won't overlap the PRO range.

TY!

LS

40mm vs 45mm is nothing, speaking strictly to focal length usefulness that's a clear overlap IMO. Now, if you're saying you want that 45mm for extra DoF control over the f2.8 zoom, that's a different story... As an all around FL it's probably not gonna be anyone's first choice tho, unless portraits are like your favourite thing ever.

I don't think it's too tight indoors unless you live in a tiny apartment, but it is a pretty tight FL generally speaking... How often did you shoot at the end of the zoom on your D5200? Or did you not use it much?

I was talking about the 42.5 f1.7, the cheaper one. Some people prefer its bokeh over that of the Oly 45, but again we go in a very "preference-based" territory.

I also have an Oly camera, but I don't have experience with Panny lenses on it!

The 42.5/1.7 is a little more versatile than the 45/1.8, because it can focus much closer... It's no macro, but you can get reasonable close ups of flowers and other small things that you'd struggle with on the 45/1.8.

The 20mm doesn't hunt any more than any other lens IMO, I'm still waiting for someone (anyone!) to explain how that's technically possible when the only things that determine whether the camera will go hunting (because it can't find enough contrast) are the sensor and the aperture (and the 20mm is certainly fast enough at f1.7).

Now, it DOES hunt slower than any other lens when it has to hunt thru it's full range, I think that just sticks in people's mind and that's where the claim about it being prone to hunting comes from. It's slower at it, and it's noisy when doing so... But in that kind of scenario you should be finding a better AF target regardless of lens.

The 20mm does have an Achilles heel as far as AF tho, it's useless for video or C-AF... If you need it for either of those forget it.

Outside of that it's not really much worse than others. If you refocus it from the minimum focus distance to infinity then yes, it's slower (same behaviour as if it was hunting), but under more normal usage and when refocusing across shorter distances it's as peppy as any other prime.

It's still one of the sharpest primes in the system, and it's a very useful focal length, and it's tiny.

Anyway, sounds like your indecision is born out of not knowing what you want. Whether your favor one focal length or another is subjective. James mentioned one on a post above he uses his 12mm more than the 45, I love the 12mm but I'm the opposite, and I probably use the 20mm more than both combined.

My first choice for primes was the O17, but I've read a lot of reviews about the expected sharpness that was never delivered. Plus, I didn't want to overlap ranges, as I'll get the 12-40, too.

The criticism of the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 is hugely overblown. It's a fine lens that delivers fine results. Some 200% pixel peepers have given this lens a bad reputation, while certain reviewers (Darren Miles for one) consider it excellent. Do not be put off by those who spend more time at their computer than behind the lens.

I had the lens on extended loan: wonderful lens and wonderful images.

Very true, the Oly 17mm 1.8 is really nice. There is another Oly lens, the  17mm 2.8, that is not great though and not as sharp. Go for the 1.8 if you choose that focal length.

Primes to consider:

- Panasonic Leica 15mm f1.7: Wonderfull small lens

- m.Zuiko 25mm f1.7: Very good standard lens.

- Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7: Very good portrait lens and good for closeups of flowers etc.

- m.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 macro: Very good macro lens.

LMNCT wrote:

Take a look at the Panasonic 15 1.7. It is very sharp, no problem with low light shots and it is not too heavy. Very well made and one of the Pana lenses which are endorsed by Leica. The aperture ring, which I find very handy, is not functional on Olympus bodies but it is controlled through the body just like the native Olympus lenses. Excellent lens and wide enough for indoor use.

Thanks! The 15 1.7 was the second choice after the 17 1.8!

There is also the 12mm f2 Olympus, but I have no first hand experience with it. If you are shooting in really cramped interiors, that may be a consideration.

it's a good idea, but I guess I can manage 12mm with the 2.8, though.

haslo wrote:

LMNCT wrote:

There is also the 12mm f2 Olympus, but I have no first hand experience with it. If you are shooting in really cramped interiors, that may be a consideration.

I own both the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 12mm f/2, and I never have both with me at the same time. There are situations where I prefer the prime (faster, smaller), other situations where I prefer the zoom (more flexible, weather sealed), but carrying both at the same time is unnecessary. And as a consequence, buying both as part of a three lens setup is unnecessary, too, I think.

Me too!

I do like the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 a lot. It's not the sharpest lens there is, and yet it does outresolve the sensor (but not high-res shots of the E-M5ii) in my experience. Handling and size are great; I often use that one indoors or for family and street shooting.

I've shot film for a lot of time before migrate to digital (Nikon DX body), and my prime of choice was the 35mm -- that's why my first choice was the 17mm 1.8!

LS

James Pilcher wrote:

sellera wrote:

Hello!

As I've explained before , I'm moving from DSRL to M43, and I'm looking for a initial set of lenses.

I have the current setup in mind:

- OM-D E-M5 II;

- Oly 12-40 PRO;

- Oly 75-300 II;

- Oly 45mm 1.8.

The 12-40 is a no-brainer, it's my first choice and I'll stick to it.

Smart thinking.

The 75-300 II came to replace the 40-150 R, in order to give me more room to try some telephoto shots.

I ditched my 75-300mm Mk I because it was just too slow in too many situations. I replaced it with the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO. Wow! Much better lens and up to 2-1/3 stops more light coming in. I do not miss the 300mm vs. the 150mm. If I ever do, I'll get the MC-14 teleconverter for a 210mm f/4.

Yeah, the 40-150 + MC14 is the ideal choice, but it would break my bank and I wouldn't be able to buy the other photography-unrelated stuff I'm planning to (GTX 1080, 1TB SSD...).

I know the limitations of the 75-300, indoors it would be a drag, but between her and the 40-150 R (not the pro), I'll have the former.

The 45mm 1.8 is becoming the elephant in the room. I love the shots, the sharpness all along the frame, but I'm worried about the space needed to shoot with her indoors.

This is an oddball lens in my own collection. See below...

Will do.

My first choice for primes was the O17, but I've read a lot of reviews about the expected sharpness that was never delivered. Plus, I didn't want to overlap ranges, as I'll get the 12-40, too.

The criticism of the M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 is hugely overblown. It's a fine lens that delivers fine results. Some 200% pixel peepers have given this lens a bad reputation, while certain reviewers (Darren Miles for one) consider it excellent. Do not be put off by those who spend more time at their computer than behind the lens.

I had the lens on extended loan: wonderful lens and wonderful images.

Thanks. Before the 45mm, the 17mm was my first choice, but I got misled by some reviews I found online.

I also read about the old faithful P20 1.7, but focus hunting in low light is an issue that worries me, as the reported noise when focusing.

Again, you listen too much to those who have nothing better to do than raise doubts in the minds of others. Ask yourself why, despite these "terrible" attributes you mention, this lens is likely the all-time best selling µ4/3 lens. Then go buy it.

Yes, but things are not that simple here in Brazil. The main purpose of my trip is to buy a camera and a set of lenses! I have to make the absolute best decision, as I don't know when I'll travel again!

I know that primes and zooms are two different things, but I'd really like to add a wide or mid-wide prime to my future setup.

My favorite is my M.Zuiko 12mm f/2. Wonderful lens if you ignore the ignorant 200% pixel peepers. I have mine since it became available in 2011. I have never, not once, been disappointed with its performance. It's a keeper for me, even if I do break down and purchase the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO or the upcoming 12-100mm f/4 PRO.

If the 12-100 f4 is available when I'll go, it will be my logical choice over the 12-40!

What to do? Which prime to get? Should I stick to the 45? How does she handle street photography? too narrow?

No one can tell you how a focal length handles a specific type of photography. It's up to you do decide your style and pick the lens for it. My 45mm is my least-used lens, despite its excellent capabilities. I use my 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.4, and 75mm f/1.8 the most, and in that order.

Nice setup!

My other lenses are the 8mm f/1.8 PRO fisheye, 45mm f/1.8, 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO.

Even though I called my 45mm f/1.8 the "oddball lens in my collection," it is one of my two go-to landscape lenses. I like landscape images made with short telephoto lenses. My other landscape favorite is my 25mm f/1.4 Leica, shot at f/4-5.6.

Why not the 12mm f2 for landscapes? to wide?

TY!

LS

Impulses wrote:

40mm vs 45mm is nothing, speaking strictly to focal length usefulness that's a clear overlap IMO. Now, if you're saying you want that 45mm for extra DoF control over the f2.8 zoom, that's a different story... As an all around FL it's probably not gonna be anyone's first choice tho, unless portraits are like your favourite thing ever.

I don't think I'll miss the extra DoF control. And I do shoot some portraits, but's not most of the time.

I don't think it's too tight indoors unless you live in a tiny apartment, but it is a pretty tight FL generally speaking...

Not small at all, but I like 35 (on FF) better! My plan was to use the 45mm for street photography, but I guess she's too narrow for it.

How often did you shoot at the end of the zoom on your D5200? Or did you not use it much?

A lot. I keep the 35mm (52.5 FF) 60% of the time, and the zoom the remaining 40%. When using the zoom, I like to shoot people and some nature, but the latter is very rare around here, so I'm planning some travel to nearby cities.

TY!

LS

TyphoonTW wrote:

I was talking about the 42.5 f1.7, the cheaper one. Some people prefer its bokeh over that of the Oly 45, but again we go in a very "preference-based" territory.

Yeah, I know. I like bokeh, but for now I have to be rational and choose wisely

TY!

LS

Consider the Panasonic 35-100 2.8.

Impulses wrote:

The 42.5/1.7 is a little more versatile than the 45/1.8, because it can focus much closer... It's no macro, but you can get reasonable close ups of flowers and other small things that you'd struggle with on the 45/1.8.

Good!

The 20mm doesn't hunt any more than any other lens IMO, I'm still waiting for someone (anyone!) to explain how that's technically possible when the only things that determine whether the camera will go hunting (because it can't find enough contrast) are the sensor and the aperture (and the 20mm is certainly fast enough at f1.7).

I'm really new to M43, but sometimes even my Nikon prime hunts in low light.

Now, it DOES hunt slower than any other lens when it has to hunt thru it's full range, I think that just sticks in people's mind and that's where the claim about it being prone to hunting comes from. It's slower at it, and it's noisy when doing so... But in that kind of scenario you should be finding a better AF target regardless of lens.

Indeed, perfect observation!

The 20mm does have an Achilles heel as far as AF tho, it's useless for video or C-AF... If you need it for either of those forget it.

Yeah, I'm planning some future videos, nothing professional, but still...

Outside of that it's not really much worse than others. If you refocus it from the minimum focus distance to infinity then yes, it's slower (same behaviour as if it was hunting), but under more normal usage and when refocusing across shorter distances it's as peppy as any other prime.

It's still one of the sharpest primes in the system, and it's a very useful focal length, and it's tiny.

What I like about her, beyond the f 1.7, is the compact build, but the noise is a deal-breaker for me

Anyway, sounds like your indecision is born out of not knowing what you want. Whether your favor one focal length or another is subjective. James mentioned one on a post above he uses his 12mm more than the 45, I love the 12mm but I'm the opposite, and I probably use the 20mm more than both combined.

Some of it, yes! But only because I can't buy a camera or lenses around here due to 85-90% import taxes, so I want to have all my ground covered, in a smart way.

TY!

LS

East Coast Photog wrote:

Very true, the Oly 17mm 1.8 is really nice. There is another Oly lens, the 17mm 2.8, that is not great though and not as sharp. Go for the 1.8 if you choose that focal length.

Yes, my first choice, indeed.

TY!

LS