Back at it again

So the other day I was in a conundrum in choosing a second lens. I've had the Panasonic 14-42mm for maybe almost 4 years. I'd made the decision to go with the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 because it's on sell for 147.99, then I saw reviews on the Panasonic 42.5mm. Next, rumblings about the Panasonic 14-140mm which dampened my thoughts of getting the Olympus 40-150mm, which I can get for 66.99. Is the 42.5mm or even the Olympus 45mm worth the extra 150. Is the 14-150mm worth the extra 300(granted it's weather sealed). Is it worth paying twice the amount?

allsta7610 wrote:

So the other day I was in a conundrum in choosing a second lens. I've had the Panasonic 14-42mm for maybe almost 4 years. I'd made the decision to go with the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 because it's on sell for 147.99, then I saw reviews on the Panasonic 42.5mm. Next, rumblings about the Panasonic 14-140mm which dampened my thoughts of getting the Olympus 40-150mm, which I can get for 66.99. Is the 42.5mm or even the Olympus 45mm worth the extra 150. Is the 14-150mm worth the extra 300(granted it's weather sealed). Is it worth paying twice the amount?

My suggestions:

• Keep the 14-42 - it must be fine as you have been using it for 4 years!
• Get the Oly 40-150 - it's very good.  Plus you're getting it for $66.99.  This and the 14-42 would cover a 14-150 range and you can skip the 14-140 superzoom.
• Get the Pany 25/1.7 for $147.  That's a very good deal.  This is your normal FL low-light lens.
• Get the 42.5/1.7 or 45/1.8 if you need a faster lens than the 40-150.  I need a 45/1.8 @f1.8 for my kids' basketball games.  For outdoors, the 40-150 works just as well IMO

As a beginner I would just say get a prime lens.

I recently got the Oly 17/1.8 for landscape and travel, and the Oly 45/1.8 for portraits.

After playing with them a bit I regret not getting them sooner.

Regards, Wouter

25 1.7 and 42.5 1.7

I love these replies that offer abstract empty advice.  This is how you end up with lots of equipment that just sits in your bag and money poorly spent.

Here's what you need to do:

Think about what you like to photograph - it helps to go back and look at the photographs you've really enjoyed.  People?  Landscapes?  Kids playing?  Nature?

Decide what photographs the 14-42 has kept you from getting.  Lower light?  Longer reach?  Faster Focus?  Closer focus?

As the 14-42 has seemed to serve you well, you might want to consider how committed you are to actively changing lenses.  Some folks love carrying a series of primes.  Some folks (like me) appreciate the immediacy of framing that a zoom offers (though I still usually carry one specialty prime).

The lenses you mention all have pretty good reputations, but they all have different strengths.  Decide what photographs you want to try and get (or improve) and the choice of what tool to use will make more sense.

Virtual Photon wrote:

I love these replies that offer abstract empty advice. This is how you end up with lots of equipment that just sits in your bag and money poorly spent.

Here's what you need to do:

Think about what you like to photograph - it helps to go back and look at the photographs you've really enjoyed. People? Landscapes? Kids playing? Nature?

Decide what photographs the 14-42 has kept you from getting. Lower light? Longer reach? Faster Focus? Closer focus?

As the 14-42 has seemed to serve you well, you might want to consider how committed you are to actively changing lenses. Some folks love carrying a series of primes. Some folks (like me) appreciate the immediacy of framing that a zoom offers (though I still usually carry one specialty prime).

The lenses you mention all have pretty good reputations, but they all have different strengths. Decide what photographs you want to try and get (or improve) and the choice of what tool to use will make more sense.

+1000.  Great advice. Photographer, know thyself.

The 25mm is waiting in my cart, case closed. The 40-150 might be the next one after that, just to cover the general range. I was looking at a boatload of reviews saying get 42.5 or 45 for portraiture photography(one person even downplayed the 25 completely for portraits.) Moral of the story is there is such a thing as too much research.

allsta7610 wrote:

The 25mm is waiting in my cart, case closed. The 40-150 might be the next one after that, just to cover the general range. I was looking at a boatload of reviews saying get 42.5 or 45 for portraiture photography(one person even downplayed the 25 completely for portraits.) Moral of the story is there is such a thing as too much research.

If you have a Panasonic camera body that supports dual IS, then 42.5/1.7 w/ OIS makes a lot more sense.  Or if you have a m43 body with no IBIS, 42.5/1.7 makes more sense.

I bought my 45 before the 42.5 was released.

LMNCT wrote:

25 1.7 and 42.5 1.7

15mm f1.7 and 42.5mm f1.7

allsta7610 wrote:

The 25mm is waiting in my cart, case closed. The 40-150 might be the next one after that, just to cover the general range. I was looking at a boatload of reviews saying get 42.5 or 45 for portraiture photography(one person even downplayed the 25 completely for portraits.) Moral of the story is there is such a thing as too much research.

Do you do portraits? The 25mm is a good general purpose focal length that can be  used for full body or 2 - 3 person shots. The 45mm is going to put you in the head and shoulders range unless you have some room.