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

leendertcv wrote:

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.

I wish I could bring'em all with me to Brazil, but I'm afraid I'll have to chose only one

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

SpinOne wrote:

This is what I'd do, if you were me.

E-M5 II + 17mm or 25mm + Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6.

Interesting choice, that was my FIRST idea (the Travel Kit, from Oly!), but with the 14-150 II, weather sealed.

And keep your DSLR for now.

I'm planning to shoot along with my fiance, and she would use the D5200!

The 17mm is an excellent lens, vastly underrated, though a tad expensive for what it is.

Yeah! Maybe it's the metal finish, who knows!

Forget the 20mm. AF is slow, and IMO it's vastly overrated.

Noted!

The 40-150 f/4-5.6 is an outstanding lens, very light, ridiculously cheap.

I know, it was my first choice, it's very cheap and reasonably sharp for the price!

After you've used this setup for a bit, then consider the 12-40. It's a great lens, but it is also relatively heavy for M43, and doesn't really leverage the format's advantages.

Here lies the problem, mate: I'm traveling to US just to buy the camera and lenses, since Brazilian Oly won't sell photography gear here, and import taxes are between 85-90% for this kind of products That's why I was planning to have all my ground covered.

At the absolute minimum, unless you're a working professional, you certainly don't need to buy everything all at once.

No pro here, just an enthusiast!

TY!

LS

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

Consider the Panasonic 35-100 2.8.

Thanks - I've read very good things about her, too, but for now it's a little out of my budget!

TY!

LS

sellera wrote:

leendertcv wrote:

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.

I wish I could bring'em all with me to Brazil, but I'm afraid I'll have to chose only one

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

If it's between those two, I would go with the Oly 17mm. Both lenses are similar quality, but Oly will do in-camera chromatic aberration and lens distortion corrections with JPEGs. Just a bit more convenient. Otherwise, both are great lenses.

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;

Very good camera. I enjoy using mine, but I still use the E-M1 a bunch more.

• Oly 12-40 PRO;

Very good choice. I use my all the time. I also have the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 and it is a good lens and a little mare compact. Still I like the 12-40 F2.8 more and use it more.

• Oly 75-300 II;

It is a ok consumer level long zoom. After getting the 40-150 F2.8 and the matching 1.4xTC I gave the 75-300 to my wife and she like it.

• Oly 45mm 1.8.

A very good lens. I like mine and if I was going to do low light and shallow DOF type of photography I will use it. Otherwise the 12-40 F2.8 will do.

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.

It is a good lens for playing with telephoto shots and seeing if you will use such a lens.

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.

Really fine for shoulder/head portraits.

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 17 F1.8 is a good lens and serves me well. It s a perfect length for environmental portraits.

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 never have used one. So no comment.

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.

The Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 is a great lens. It is very compact and has great image quality. I don't use mine much because I really enjoy the extra reach of the Olympus 40-150 F28, even through it is a large for MFT lens.

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

The 45 is a good lens. So is the Panasonic 25 F1.4, which will give you even better low light possibilities. So is the 17 F1.8. Plus so many other excellent prime choices in the 12-45 range

Thank you in advance!

So many choices with MFT. This is one thing that is really great about MFT.

LS

-- hide signature --

Date the body, marry the lenses.

With m43, it's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to lens selection, as there is so much variety at various focal lengths. In your situation, though, I think it comes down to what will add more new photo possibilities.

If you've settled on the 12-40, this covers so much of the range, with a relatively fast and sharp lens. Adding the 45/1.8 brings in almost no new photo possibilities, despite being slightly faster and 5mm longer. You might pick up a very few indoor portraits in low light, but the Olympus IBIS is so good that you'll be able to handle almost all of them with the 12-40 and switching to the 45 might just remove your flexibility.

The holes in your focal length setup are at the extreme wide end and in the middle, between 40 and 70. That middle ground would be better filled by the 60/2.8 macro, which is not only a great macro lens, but is very good as a portrait lens when space allows.

It's tempting to add a wide zoom, but they can be pricy. If you don't shoot ultra wide often, consider the cheap and very good Samyang 7.5 fisheye, It's fun to use and can be defished for "normal" wide angle perspective (nothing is really normal when you get that wide). It's a lot of bang for the buck.

My 2 cents.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

TruPic VII should handle all Lumix correction so Panny lenses should perform the same on recent Oly bodies as on Pannys (aside from DfD focusing).

Cheers,

Rick

Good to know, wasn't aware of the update. Important for me as I don't handle raw files unless I absolutely have to. Thanks!

-Marty

East Coast Photog wrote:

If it's between those two, I would go with the Oly 17mm. Both lenses are similar quality, but Oly will do in-camera chromatic aberration and lens distortion corrections with JPEGs. Just a bit more convenient. Otherwise, both are great lenses.

TY - I'm very inclined to pick her!

LS

sellera wrote:

East Coast Photog wrote:

If it's between those two, I would go with the Oly 17mm. Both lenses are similar quality, but Oly will do in-camera chromatic aberration and lens distortion corrections with JPEGs. Just a bit more convenient. Otherwise, both are great lenses.

TY - I'm very inclined to pick her!

LS

I am very happy with my Oly 17, I think the negative comments are overblown. I doubt that you will be disappointed. I love the click ring to go to manual focus and the overall build quality is excellent. I have the 45 and rarely use it. The 17 is much more useful IMO.

If you 'Must' have a 35mm equivalent lens, then go with the Oly 17mm 1.8. It's a fine lens. Actually, there isn't really any dud lenses in m43 land. Sure, there are ones that are worse than others, like the other Oly 17mm 2.8 but even that one can and does produce great images (I have one).

With that said, the Pan Leica 15mm, from what I have read is a better lens optically. On the top of the list of lenses I want. No real negatives that I can see.

DLBlack 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;

Very good camera. I enjoy using mine, but I still use the E-M1 a bunch more.

I'm sure I'd appreciate the M1 handling better, but the M5 has some newer features that attracts me!

• Oly 12-40 PRO;

Very good choice. I use my all the time. I also have the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 and it is a good lens and a little mare compact. Still I like the 12-40 F2.8 more and use it more.

Thanks!

• Oly 75-300 II;

It is a ok consumer level long zoom. After getting the 40-150 F2.8 and the matching 1.4xTC I gave the 75-300 to my wife and she like it.

Yeah, I'm sure it's fantastic, but, for now, out of my budget

• Oly 45mm 1.8.

A very good lens. I like mine and if I was going to do low light and shallow DOF type of photography I will use it. Otherwise the 12-40 F2.8 will do.

Yes, I've seen some fantastic portraits with razor sharp DOF, but portraits are not my main goal for now.

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.

It is a good lens for playing with telephoto shots and seeing if you will use such a lens.

I already use my Nikkor 70-300 a lot, I guess I'll use this oly a lot, too!

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.

Really fine for shoulder/head portraits.

Yes, it's wonderful for such style!

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 17 F1.8 is a good lens and serves me well. It s a perfect length for environmental portraits.

What about street photography? Too wide?

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 never have used one. So no comment.

TY!

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.

The Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 is a great lens. It is very compact and has great image quality. I don't use mine much because I really enjoy the extra reach of the Olympus 40-150 F28, even through it is a large for MFT lens.

It's a little out of my budget, too

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

The 45 is a good lens. So is the Panasonic 25 F1.4, which will give you even better low light possibilities. So is the 17 F1.8. Plus so many other excellent prime choices in the 12-45 range

Yes -- it's driving me crazy, mate.

Thank you in advance!

So many choices with MFT. This is one thing that is really great about MFT.

Yes - I'd buy most of them, if I could!

TY!

LS

sellera wrote:

leendertcv wrote:

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.

I wish I could bring'em all with me to Brazil, but I'm afraid I'll have to chose only one

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

My walk around prime kit is the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on EM5ii and the 60mm f/2.8 macro. I find my 17mm's center to corner sharpness and overall IQ to be very fine. Not quite as sharp as the 60mm, but these are two very different lenses and I really like my 17mm. One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the 17mm's manual focus ring and depth of field scale - just like on my 12-40mm and 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro zoom lenses!

Before I get into your specific 17mm vs 15mm lens choice dilemma, some background information might be helpful. In my 135 full-frame film days, when photographing for travel and pleasure I carried two Pentax Spotmatic II bodies, one with a 35mm f/2, the other with an 85mm f/1.8, and in my pocket a 21mm f/4 (I may be a little off on that last focal length and aperture, was it 21.5mm and f/4.5?). The 35mm was my most-used lens, so I have a deep connection there. 28mm was too wide for me (and not wide enough for some "special" shots), and especially in closer-ups with people the 28mm had too much rectilinear projection distortion towards the edges of the frame.  Also of note, I rarely needed the extra aperture for shallower depth of field on both the 35mm and 85mm, but mostly shooting Kodachrome 64 I needed the lens speed, though was always wanting a deeper depth of field.

Now, the PL 15mm is still too wide for me, but it depends on your own preferences and subjects, so you may prefer it to the 17mm.

However, there is one more thing to consider, and that is how you intend to use your photos, including what aspect ratio you tend to work in, since the "equivalent field of view" when comparing μ4/3 to 135 full-frame format is always calculated on the diagonal field of view, whereas the horizontal (or vertical) angle might be the more important to you.

I realize that this may be "splitting hairs", but this may help you to make your decision. When I shot film on my Pentax Spotmatics, in 95% of my photos I was thinking in aspect ratios closer to the 4:3 ratio (same as μ4/3!), not the native 3:2, because I was printing 8x10 and 11x14 inch prints of my best. So, I generally cropped the sides of a landscape orientation print for my final image, making the effective diagonal field of view angle slightly smaller than the calculated lens native angle. So, already for me today on μ4/3 the 17mm may be just a bit wider angle than my film 35mm, and the 15mm is just too wide.

On the other hand, if you tend towards the 3:2 aspect ratio, for μ4/3 you will have to crop the vertical, so the effective diagonal angle will be slightly smaller, and this may push you towards the PL 15mm.

To help visualize this, the following screenshots from my iPhone compare the 17mm of μ4/3 to the 35mm of FF, with equivalent diagonal, vertical, and horizontal imaging angles used for crop factors and showing imaging area overlays:

Diagonal field of view comparison.

Vertical field of view comparison.

Horizontal field of view comparison.

I hope this helps.

Cheers

Dennis

Skeeterbytes wrote:

TruPic VII should handle all Lumix correction so Panny lenses should perform the same on recent Oly bodies as on Pannys (aside from DfD focusing).

Why, thank you, mate, I didn't know it, so I'll keep that in mind when pondering.

TY!

LS

Jim Salvas wrote:

With m43, it's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to lens selection, as there is so much variety at various focal lengths. In your situation, though, I think it comes down to what will add more new photo possibilities.

You're absolutely right!

If you've settled on the 12-40, this covers so much of the range, with a relatively fast and sharp lens. Adding the 45/1.8 brings in almost no new photo possibilities, despite being slightly faster and 5mm longer. You might pick up a very few indoor portraits in low light, but the Olympus IBIS is so good that you'll be able to handle almost all of them with the 12-40 and switching to the 45 might just remove your flexibility.

That's what I thought, some other mate just answered exactly the same, it's overlapping the 12-40!

The holes in your focal length setup are at the extreme wide end and in the middle, between 40 and 70. That middle ground would be better filled by the 60/2.8 macro, which is not only a great macro lens, but is very good as a portrait lens when space allows.

I was thinking about her, I've seen some non-macro shots and she's good for portraits, too, like the 75mm, but not that sharp. Do you have it? How does she handles? I guess she's a little large for a prime.

It's tempting to add a wide zoom, but they can be pricy. If you don't shoot ultra wide often, consider the cheap and very good Samyang 7.5 fisheye, It's fun to use and can be defished for "normal" wide angle perspective (nothing is really normal when you get that wide). It's a lot of bang for the buck.

I'm looking to pictures taken with this tiny fisheye, lot of personality, hum? Nice choice,  I'll keep that in the rol.

My 2 cents.

TY!

LS

sellera wrote:

Right now, I'm torn between P15 and O17!

15/1.7

This is my sharpest prime (in my bag of 8 primes which includes 25/1.8 and 45/1.8).   I chose this over 12/2 and 17/1.8 and I use it mainly on my GM1 (and occasionally on my EM1).

It was my most used lens during my recent 4-week summer vacation in Asia.

Except maybe on some esoteric test chart, the 60/2.8 is as sharp as any in the m43 repertoire and it is, for its focal length, a remarkably light, compact lens,  weighing only a couple of ounces more than the 45/1.8.

First of all, the Olympus EM5 II and 12-40mm PRO is an excellent kit. You have chosen wisely! 

When it comes to lenses, don't think in terms of "overlap" ... think in terms of intended use. Your lens buying decisions should be based entirely on three things:

1. Your needs
2. Your wants
3. Your budget

Advice from other shooters won't mean very much, because they had to deal with THEIR wants, needs and budgets when they made their buying decisions.

So ask yourself... "what kind of photos do I want to take?" There are over 60 M4/3 AF native mount lenses now, and most of them are pretty darn good. You really should be focusing on your own needs and not someone else's preferences.

That 12-40mm PRO lens is an outstanding choice for a normal zoom lens. I don't own one myself, but only because I prefer using primes. But if I had the extra cash, I'd buy that lens too. Because it is that nice.

Any 42.5mm or 45mm lens is a specialty lens. Very useful for portraits, and sometimes useful for architectural detail shots, but virtually useless indoors and in close quarters. You really need to go much wider for indoor photography. The 75mm f/1.8 is another great choice for portraits, especially if they are taken outdoors or in very large rooms where you have enough space to get further from your subject. I find the 75mm lens most useful for indoor sports, concerts and theater.

For indoor photography you pretty much need a wide and fast lens. Especially if you intend to take group shots. This is where the 12mm f/2.0, 15mm f/1.7, and 17mm  f/1.8 lenses do best. Those same three lenses are also great for street photography

Now.... a word about lens speed. Those f/1.2 lenses are wonderful, but they are bigger, heavier and much more expensive. You really don't need them for low light photography if you are willing to move the ISO up to 1600 or 3200. And all the newer four thirds sensors are very capable at those settings. As an amateur, I find f/2.0 fast enough for me, but to be honest if I had the money I'd buy every f/1.2 lens available.

I own a 75-300mm II lens, and I find it useful for outdoor wildlife shooting in good light. The lens is pretty slow, and less than idea at the longest end. If you are serious about long telephoto shooting, then start saving for a PanaLeica 100-400mm lens, or better yet, an Olympus 300mm f/4.0 PRO lens.

Finally, lets talk about those fast normal prime prime lenses in the 20-25mm range. These might seem like they are redundant because you have a 12-40mm lens, but they really aren't. These lenses are faster, smaller, sharper and more discrete, so they are better indoors than a zoom lens, and draw less attention outdoors for street shooting.

I own a 25mm f/1.8 and think it is a great lens.

The whole family!

larsbc wrote:

sellera wrote:

[snip]

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.

I agree. IMO that focal length is too long for indoor shooting unless you're primarily after head & shoulder shots.

My point exactly!

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 wouldn't avoid overlapping focal lengths if there are other advantages that are important to you, such as size and aperture size. I have a 12-35/2.8 which I love but for street shooting I prefer my 20/1.7 because it's small, it's got a fast aperture, and it simplifies the process of street shooting.

Yes, there are, indeed. Street photography in low light condition, for example. I guess the 17mm is more discrete than the 45mm, and MUCH more discrete than my D5200 + 35mm.

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.

For me, focus noise is only an issue if shooting video. It's AF speed is also fast enough in low light on my GX7. On my EM5 II, well, I try to avoid using the 20/1.7 in low light on my Olympus...the AF is terrible. Even when using the 12-35/2.8 on the GX7 vs EM5 II, I find the latter to be less able to AF in low light.

I'm planning to shot some video, nothing professional, but I would not like to hear anything but the captured audio.

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

IMO it would be too narrow. I'd look at the Olympus 17 or the PanaLeica 15.

I'm thorn apart between those two!

I have a 9-18 zoom but since getting the 12-35, I've used the 9-18 less. In fact, I find the very modestly priced Samyang 7.5mm fisheye to be more appealing for those times when I need wider than 12mm.

That's a nice fill-in, as another mate suggested, too.

My typical travel kit is one or both bodies (GX7, EM5 II) with:

Panasonic 12-35/2.8

Panasonic 35-100/2.8

Panasonic 20/1.7

Samyang 7.5

Mine would be like:

O12-40

O75-300

O17

S7.5

I'm considering replacing the 20 with the Leica 15/1.7 but am still struggling to mentally overcome its price (I'm in Canada).

Imagine it for me -- I live in Brazil!

TY!

LS