Trip to India: adding a prime to my EZ 14-42mm kit lens

mfroms wrote:

So after getting some great help from you guys earlier with choosing a camera I've now received my e-m10 mark ii with the 14-42 kit lens.

In two weeks I'm going on a trip to India for three weeks. And I would love to add another prime for this. This is how I see myself travel and using my camera:

• General sightseeing (like Delhi/Taj Mahal) during daytime: Using the 14-42.
• Some photos at dusk/dawn (hence the prime rather than the 14-42)
• Days more focused on taking nice pics of the people and the life in India; guess street is closest to describe this
• Indoor photos of me and my travel company

So if you could only add one prime, which would it be?

What I'm considering:

Olympus 45/1,8 - Great for people, but would it be a bit too tele for street/general photos of life in india? Also, is size an issue here?

Panasonic 20/1,7 II - Have to move a bit closer when taking portraits, on the other hand: there are LOTS of people in India so the wider 20 might be more useful so it's possible to add context as well? Also, a bit expensive (and almost out of my budget)

Panasonic 25/1,8 - Cheap! However a bit bigger, maybe too big to carry around all day?

Use the 14-42's long end for portrait photos. For indoor/lowlight stuff, the Panasonic 20/1.7, Panasonic 15/1.7 or Olympus 17/1.8.

If possible do tajmahal very early in the day. In fact be there 20 minutes before it opens.

As soon as it opens go directly to the back side of the taj spend your time there that moment is magical down there. As the sun comes up walk to the front and you will also see crowd increasing.

Going to taj in day means you will see lots of crowd.

mfroms wrote:

So after getting some great help from you guys earlier with choosing a camera I've now received my e-m10 mark ii with the 14-42 kit lens.

In two weeks I'm going on a trip to India for three weeks. And I would love to add another prime for this. This is how I see myself travel and using my camera:

• General sightseeing (like Delhi/Taj Mahal) during daytime: Using the 14-42.
• Some photos at dusk/dawn (hence the prime rather than the 14-42)
• Days more focused on taking nice pics of the people and the life in India; guess street is closest to describe this
• Indoor photos of me and my travel company

So if you could only add one prime, which would it be?

What I'm considering:

Olympus 45/1,8 - Great for people, but would it be a bit too tele for street/general photos of life in india? Also, is size an issue here?

Panasonic 20/1,7 II - Have to move a bit closer when taking portraits, on the other hand: there are LOTS of people in India so the wider 20 might be more useful so it's possible to add context as well? Also, a bit expensive (and almost out of my budget)

Panasonic 25/1,8 - Cheap! However a bit bigger, maybe too big to carry around all day?

One important thing, and the reason for buying the e-m10, is the size and having a camera that is small enough to carry with me rather (already own a big Nikon DSLR).

So what do you guys say? All input is greatly appreciated!

Best regards

//M

mfroms wrote:

So you would prefer the Pana 20/1.7 rather than the 25/1.7? Read something about slow autofocus on the 20/1.7, do you think this will be an issue?

For stills, it's never been an issue for me.  For video, I'd still use it since I don't usually use AF when recording...but if you did, then the AF noise is also going to be an issue with that lens.  In which case, go for the 17/1.8 or 15/1.7.
I also have a 25/1.4 but for a single travel prime for indoors, I'd take my 15/1.7 (or 17/1.8 if I had one).  I use my 25/1.4 for outdoor street photography, mosty.

100% the 45mm f1.8 - it is cheap, the best of the 3 lenses you mentioned (quicker to focus than the 20 and better optically than the P25).

India is full of amazing sights, so your zoom will serve you well in the day for sightseeing and street. But the "real India" is the amazing street scenes. The poverty is pretty harsh, so that's why I say the 45 over the 25; you can keep your distance and capture plenty of colorful street sights, cows in the middle of the road, characters, plus you have the option to get in close and take awesome portraits with smooth bokeh, which those with you should appreciate.

Sure, you have to take a step or two back with the 45 sometimes e.g. when having a group meal. But it is worth it. You can get perfectly good head shots of your travel partners whilst eating. The 45 makes it so easy to get warm shots (slight yellow tint) of people with good background blur.

The 20 would be boring and not enough difference to your zoom i.e. not much background blur. The 25 is faster to focus, lightweight but bigger than the 45 and again pretty "vanilla" when it comes to getting shots which will really make you go wow compared to your zoom. If you take a shot in the day with the 45 you will know it was taken that lens when you come to view your trip pics. With the other two you will only know if it is a close up shot.

If I was to go back to India I would certainly leave behind my tiny 14mm street camera and re-buy the 45mm 1.8 to use with my pancake zoom. Or take the Sigma 60mm. People's faces are what I want to capture and day to day activity- a guy rolling a massive cart down the street, a woman cleaning her clothes in the Ganges at dawn, colourful head scarfs of women with pierced faces that have "seen a lot".

ahaslett wrote:

mfroms wrote:

So you would prefer the Pana 20/1.7 rather than the 25/1.7? Read something about slow autofocus on the 20/1.7, do you think this will be an issue?

SAF on the 20/1.7 is a bit slower than other MFT lenses ......

I think this is down to personal opinion. For me it is not a bit slower, it is enormously slower, my keeper rate was very poor for anything moving. India is a non stop chock-a-block assault on the senses of new things to photo, you will want to take photos in rickshaws and taxis whilst moving. If you look at the actual figures, sure it is only within a second, but the pretty much instant focus (approx. 0.20 seconds) you get with the 25 or 45 can feel a long way away from almost a second on the 20mm. Even if it manages to focus in half a second it is 2 and a half times slower that the others. I pulled the figures out of thin air to illustrate the point, but they are probably a decent enough guesstimate.  Again, this is just my opinion, I do not wish to debate the 20mm with anyone. The OP asked, so I am giving him/her an alternative opinion,

jeffharris wrote:

mentos77 wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

mfroms wrote:

So you would prefer the Pana 20/1.7 rather than the 25/1.7? Read something about slow autofocus on the 20/1.7, do you think this will be an issue?

SAF on the 20/1.7 is a bit slower than other MFT lenses ......

I think this is down to personal opinion. For me it is not a bit slower, it is enormously slower, my keeper rate was very poor for anything moving. India is a non stop chock-a-block assault on the senses of new things to photo, you will want to take photos in rickshaws and taxis whilst moving. If you look at the actual figures, sure it is only within a second, but the pretty much instant focus (approx. 0.20 seconds) you get with the 25 or 45 can feel a long way away from almost a second on the 20mm. Even if it manages to focus in half a second it is 2 and a half times slower that the others. I pulled the figures out of thin air to illustrate the point, but they are probably a decent enough guesstimate. Again, this is just my opinion, I do not wish to debate the 20mm with anyone. The OP asked, so I am giving him/her an alternative opinion,

I've owned both versions of the 20mm. Even on Panasonic cameras… GH2, GX1, GX7 & GX8… it often hunts for focus even in full daylight. Sometimes not. Although, it's nailed focus in low light when I thought it wouldn't. It's really a crap shoot on what it decides to focus on in whatever situation.

Another option for the OP would be to sell the kit zoom, forget the prime and just get a 12-40mm f2.8. The proverbial "bag full of primes".

In low light, crank the ISO a bit. It may not be ideal, but then which prime to buy isn't an issue AND once the OP has a chance to review their travel images, they can see which focal lengths THEY actually prefer, not a bunch of random suggestions from strangers……12mm, 14mm, 15mm, 17mm, 17.5mm, 20mm, 25mm, 42.5mm, 45mm, fisheye… UGH.

Later the OP can make an educated purchase based on their own experience and developing shooting style and way of seeing.

As far as the cost of the 12-40mm goes. How much is the OP spending on the trip? It's a "trip of a lifetime" (HATE that expression) so, what's it worth to capture images from an experience like that? There have been quite a few trips I've taken with not that great photo gear and wished I'd ponied up and bought something better!

It's probably a few $100 more. Is it worth it? I'd say!

It's also worth a lot to avoid having to change lenses in a dusty ( potentially polluted) environment. However there is the small matter of carrying around a $1000 worth of equipment while you're rubbing elbows with people perhaps earning $2-3 a day...

mfroms wrote:

So after getting some great help from you guys earlier with choosing a camera I've now received my e-m10 mark ii with the 14-42 kit lens.

In two weeks I'm going on a trip to India for three weeks. And I would love to add another prime for this. ....

Olympus 45/1,8 - Great for people, but would it be a bit too tele for street/general photos of life in india? Also, is size an issue here?

Panasonic 20/1,7 II - Have to move a bit closer when taking portraits, on the other hand: there are LOTS of people in India so the wider 20 might be more useful so it's possible to add context as well? Also, a bit expensive (and almost out of my budget)

Panasonic 25/1,8 - Cheap! However a bit bigger, maybe too big to carry around all day?

...

//M

I have both Olympus 45/1.8 and PANASONIC 20/1.7 . When traveling I almost always take the 20mm/ 1.7 lens  in preference to 45mm ( on either e-m10 mark 1 or Epl6 which is even smaller). As you say, 45mm is often too long