Three Lens Prime Travel Set, does this work?

FirewaterSun wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

FirewaterSun wrote:

....

So I'm not quite sure how replacing 2 lenses with a lens that is cheaper than 1 of them = GAS. I got the 12mm on a great deal and will earn money on the resale.

Because you already have a bunch of lenses your not happy with.

Gassy people do this.

14mm at f2.5 & 60mm f2.8 I wouldn't really say is better than 1.7/1.8 at night. Especially for street.

If you shooting at f4 to f5.6 at night why would a faster lens be better, remember you still need dof ?

On top of which 45mm to 60mm is a bit of a waste of buying a lens for the few extra steps forwards.

Additionally this is an all round travel set as well, and I do like a bit of bokeh sometimes

but thank you for your 2 cents. happy shooting!

Like I said. Got em at a deal. Don't like em. Love the other two lenses and won't change em for anything. I guess if that means GAS in your book instead of grinning and bearing it, sure.

Shooting at f4 at night? for walking people or snap facial expressions? You must live in really brightly lit areas, or always have the background panned out.

The light is not to great where I am, if its dark and I need and I need dof it simpler enough upping the ISO a little, I mean there is barely any difference these days between ISO 200 and ISO 400 concerning noise, these newer sensors are pretty good and it can save you a hole heap of money.

Take the 75mm and 60mm, the difference between the two is one stop but the 75mm cost 5 times as much as the 60mm, the 75mm has a tiny advantage at a high price.

All I`m saying is that you could save yourself a whole heap of money and at no cost in quality.

In addition to which, it's an m43 sensor. At a 15mm focal length, 1.7 gives enough dof if you get the subject even close to in focus.

For street portraits or street candid`s shallow dof and fast lenses are fine but not so good when your telling a story and including other parts of a scene (Very often there is not enough dof with the lens wide open)

I go out shooting at night with the 45 wide open and like the results. The high-end primes are amazing at autofocus in low light.

Either way it seems our philosophies are vastly differing, which is fine. You'll forgive me if I say that I probably wouldn't shoot the same way and therefore wouldn't buy the same lenses - no offence intended!

Paulmorgan wrote:

FirewaterSun wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

FirewaterSun wrote:

....

So I'm not quite sure how replacing 2 lenses with a lens that is cheaper than 1 of them = GAS. I got the 12mm on a great deal and will earn money on the resale.

Because you already have a bunch of lenses your not happy with.

Gassy people do this.

14mm at f2.5 & 60mm f2.8 I wouldn't really say is better than 1.7/1.8 at night. Especially for street.

If you shooting at f4 to f5.6 at night why would a faster lens be better, remember you still need dof ?

On top of which 45mm to 60mm is a bit of a waste of buying a lens for the few extra steps forwards.

Additionally this is an all round travel set as well, and I do like a bit of bokeh sometimes

but thank you for your 2 cents. happy shooting!

Like I said. Got em at a deal. Don't like em. Love the other two lenses and won't change em for anything. I guess if that means GAS in your book instead of grinning and bearing it, sure.

Shooting at f4 at night? for walking people or snap facial expressions? You must live in really brightly lit areas, or always have the background panned out.

The light is not to great where I am, if its dark and I need and I need dof it simpler enough upping the ISO a little, I mean there is barely any difference these days between ISO 200 and ISO 400 concerning noise, these newer sensors are pretty good and it can save you a hole heap of money.

At ISO 400 you are either taking shots at extremely slow shutter speeds - thus completely negating any moving subjects - or as I suspected, live in Las Vegas or somewhere with spotlights at night. I have a handheld image taken a few days ago that is f1.8, 1/8s, ISO 6400 (it was even underexposed!), and would love to see that at ISO 400.

Take the 75mm and 60mm, the difference between the two is one stop but the 75mm cost 5 times as much as the 60mm, the 75mm has a tiny advantage at a high price.

All I`m saying is that you could save yourself a whole heap of money and at no cost in quality.

Not sure why we're on the 75mm vs 60mm when the original post was about replacing a 12 and 17 with a 15.

I will give you that a 500% price difference of the 60 and 75 don't really make sense for 30mm and a stop extra.

The 14 is also only about 100 more in exchange for a full stop and negligible focal length and size differences. For a lens that will last for years, I'd rather spend the extra, even if only for resale value in future if needed.

I admire your fervent commitment to ascetism, but if noone had any need for large apertures, I'd imagine all those lenses were design follies. The 12-32 stopped down is a pretty nice lens as well, that doesn't mean we all run around with kit lenses.

As I said, what you value seems to be different to what I value in a lens. Luckily, the glut of choice in M43 means neither of us has to compromise.

In addition to which, it's an m43 sensor. At a 15mm focal length, 1.7 gives enough dof if you get the subject even close to in focus.

For street portraits or street candid`s shallow dof and fast lenses are fine but not so good when your telling a story and including other parts of a scene (Very often there is not enough dof with the lens wide open)

Thank you for the refresher course on depth of field and how it changes an image.

Not sure how much experience you have with the f1.8 primes, and I don't want to assume, but if you haven't, do shoot with them a little, and note how much dof one can obtain wide open in the 12-45 range.

Awesome, thank you! I am glad it worked out for you, and I hope it will for me too - It's strange how many people insist that their focal length preference is correct and nothing else will work, it really made me doubt my idea for awhile...

Definitely thinking of a longer prime, maybe 60 or 75, but I do have the 45-100 for now.

The thing with the 12 is I'm finding it hard to justify the cost/use scenario especially when I have a 12-32 anyway! What about the 12 do you find so indispensable, may I ask?

FirewaterSun wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

FirewaterSun wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

FirewaterSun wrote:

....

So I'm not quite sure how replacing 2 lenses with a lens that is cheaper than 1 of them = GAS. I got the 12mm on a great deal and will earn money on the resale.

Because you already have a bunch of lenses your not happy with.

Gassy people do this.

14mm at f2.5 & 60mm f2.8 I wouldn't really say is better than 1.7/1.8 at night. Especially for street.

If you shooting at f4 to f5.6 at night why would a faster lens be better, remember you still need dof ?

On top of which 45mm to 60mm is a bit of a waste of buying a lens for the few extra steps forwards.

Additionally this is an all round travel set as well, and I do like a bit of bokeh sometimes

but thank you for your 2 cents. happy shooting!

Like I said. Got em at a deal. Don't like em. Love the other two lenses and won't change em for anything. I guess if that means GAS in your book instead of grinning and bearing it, sure.

Shooting at f4 at night? for walking people or snap facial expressions? You must live in really brightly lit areas, or always have the background panned out.

The light is not to great where I am, if its dark and I need and I need dof it simpler enough upping the ISO a little, I mean there is barely any difference these days between ISO 200 and ISO 400 concerning noise, these newer sensors are pretty good and it can save you a hole heap of money.

At ISO 400 you are either taking shots at extremely slow shutter speeds - thus completely negating any moving subjects - or as I suspected, live in Las Vegas or somewhere with spotlights at night.

No not great lighting were I am, its just a small town, at ISO 400 at f2.8 or f4 shutters speeds drop to somewhere around 1/40s, sometimes a little less sometimes a little more but I do like my darks dark and my lights light.

Some just assume that all histograms need pushing to the right (not saying you do this)

I have a handheld image taken a few days ago that is f1.8, 1/8s, ISO 6400 (it was even underexposed!), and would love to see that at ISO 400.

Hehe that is low, blast the street with flash.

Take the 75mm and 60mm, the difference between the two is one stop but the 75mm cost 5 times as much as the 60mm, the 75mm has a tiny advantage at a high price.

All I`m saying is that you could save yourself a whole heap of money and at no cost in quality.

Not sure why we're on the 75mm vs 60mm when the original post was about replacing a 12 and 17 with a 15.

Someone else was on about the 75 here.

I will give you that a 500% price difference of the 60 and 75 don't really make sense for 30mm and a stop extra.

The 14 is also only about 100 more in exchange for a full stop and negligible focal length and size differences. For a lens that will last for years, I'd rather spend the extra, even if only for resale value in future if needed.

I admire your fervent commitment to ascetism, but if noone had any need for large apertures, I'd imagine all those lenses were design follies. The 12-32 stopped down is a pretty nice lens as well, that doesn't mean we all run around with kit lenses.

As I said, what you value seems to be different to what I value in a lens. Luckily, the glut of choice in M43 means neither of us has to compromise.

In addition to which, it's an m43 sensor. At a 15mm focal length, 1.7 gives enough dof if you get the subject even close to in focus.

For street portraits or street candid`s shallow dof and fast lenses are fine but not so good when your telling a story and including other parts of a scene (Very often there is not enough dof with the lens wide open)

Thank you for the refresher course on depth of field and how it changes an image.

Not sure how much experience you have with the f1.8 primes, and I don't want to assume, but if you haven't, do shoot with them a little, and note how much dof one can obtain wide open in the 12-45 range.

Plenty but I tend to use full frame when I want really wide apertures, m4/3 makes you pay through the nose.

Oh nice, thank you for the heads up - damn, that will mean 500 euros/pounds in Europe, and that's pretty steep for that lens - you're into 7-14 territory there...

Have indeed been using the 12-32 as a test, and I do like what I'm seeing - I guess I was just asking more for people with experience in tighter areas etc. Although I will still have my 12-32 for those areas, and/or a 7.5mm.

Really anyone visiting foreign cities on holiday should only be taking one lens which either is a 28mm or a 35mm. You don't need another lens unless you're planning to shoot a specific landmark with a different focal length or visiting museums.

I use the 15mm 1.7 because it focal length almost match the 14mm 2.5 and almost a stop faster. This gives me not only a wide focal length but allows me to shoot landmarks in low light as well. So the 15mm 1.7 in my opinion, is a good travel lens for any Micro Four Thirder.

In the past I used to travel with the 14mm 2.5 and the 20mm. One was used for wide shots and the other was for low light. The great thing about 15mm it captures both lenses strength except for shooting friends indoors. However, you can take the 20mm with you or the 25mm.

Here is my current travel set.

15mm 1.7 - Low light and wide shots which basically has me covered.

25mm 1.4 - For people shots which I'm not going to use often.

45-150mm - Compact telephoto zoom