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

mentos77 wrote:

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".

I agree with all you have said about the 45. I love being able to shoot from that bit further away to capture daily life.

Recently went to Marrakech and even found myself using the 75 on the street. People there can be very sensitive about having their photo taken (a guy on a moto/truck chased after me because I had taken his photo and I had to delete it)  Also, many people, not just street performers, will expect payment for a photo.

However, if I only had the 45 prime I think I would become frustrated when light was lower and wanted something wider that was faster than the kit zoom.

So, I would want two primes, 45 and say, 17.

For that reason, I also think the 12-40 Oly would be a great choice, especially if it's a trip of a lifetime. You would only need the one lens too. No changing in those dusty streets.

yellodog wrote:

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...

Yes. Worrying about lens changes in a dusty environment is exactly why I (reluctantly) bought a 12-40mm. To simplify my kit and cut down on lens changes, too.

I've traveled to all sorts of third-world and dodgy places and rarely worried about the people around me. I'm always respectful and alert.

Been there, done that (4 times).

Would recommend the Pana 20 f1.7.    Often use it on my M10 mk2 ... don't see any banding ... but truthfully not looking for it.

I find the lense FOV along with its speed (aperture) sharpness, weight and size to be very useful.  Used on any of the 6 u4/3 bodies that I have ... I have not had focus issues ... though clearly it is not a 'sports' lense.

FWIW.   Chas.

I'm with Chas J on this one. The 20/1.7 is cheapish, small, and fantastic. If you need the autofocus, then the 17/1.8 is the next cheapest.

I'm mostly a landscape and street shooter. I've never focused on portraiture and always felt that the nifty-fifty FOV is a little too narrow.

On my first trip to London, I took my 20/1.7, samyang fisheye, 45-175 zoom and 14-42 zoom. I mostly used the 20mm and fisheye. I might have taken out the zooms a couple of times for making out detail near high ceilings or external stonework details, but it was just easier to keep the 20 on most of the time.

IMO, if you can only take 2 lenses and one of them is the kit zoom, the other should be the 20/1.7 or 17/1.8 (or 15/1.7 if you can afford it!). It doesn't sound like OP is really into portrait-FOV work...

Get the Oly 17mm f1.8 and you will be a happy camper, it is a great lens for street shots!

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?

I just got rid of the of Pana 20/1.7 for the Oly 25/1.7.  Focus was too slow.  Static shots the focus speed is fine. Any people moving and it is a real pain.

That said, I have an infant daughter that doesn't sit still, so my focus speed requirements are pretty high.

I actually find the FOV of the 25mm to be great for travel. Wider can feel "easier" to shoot with since I doesn't feel so tight, but I get more keepers with the 25mm FOV. Not 100% sure why; maybe forces me to have a tight coherent subject? maybe I don't have to worry about distorted perspective while traveling quickly? not sure.

Hi

For what you describe the 20mm will be a little tight I think. The best compromise is the 17mm Oly or 15mm Pana. I have all 3. Buy carefully secondhand if you can. Both the 17mm & 15mm can be decentred so watch out for that. The 20mm is a lot more consistent in this respect.

You need to give your budget when asking for recommendations. And also if you are willing to buy used or not. If you are patient you can just about buy two used lenses for the price of one new (unless you buy new on a good sale). In which case you can take two small used m43 lenses and the question becomes easier. (Edit: just saw you are leaving in 2 weeks, so buying used is out, but worthwhile keeping in mind for the future.)

If only taking one prime lens, and wanting to shoot indoor, then the 45mm is out since its too long. That leaves a number of lenses between the 15mm - 25mm range, and the main distinguishing feature between them is price (need to know budget), image quality, and bokeh (shallow dof to be more accurate). If you like some shallow dof then it's best to choose a 25mm since it starts to give a blurrier background, whereas it's harder with a 15 or 17mm.

Of the three 25mm's, all can work for you although I'd recommend the Olympus 25mm 1.8. The Panasonic 25mm 1.7 can have image quality issues and I didn't like its colours or rendering, whereas the Olympus 25mm matches your camera better, has closer focus which is surprisingly useful, and is cheaper and smaller than the Panasonic 25mm 1.4. Some say it has nicer colours too, I found that the Pana 25mm 1.4 looked a little cold, although it has beautiful bokeh.

25mm is a good flexible focal length. If I could only take one prime, it would always be a 25mm (50mm equivalent). In fact I bought the Olympus 25mm 1.8 for that very reason. I've also previously owned the other two 25mm lenses, and sold them.

Also, if you get a 25mm, then if you really need to go wider, if you have a good smartphone, you can let it take care of the 14mm-15mm wider stuff. Although in most situations your phone's quality will be nowhere near that of your m43 camera, it can still be a useful backup if you need to go wider than 25mm.

I just love dpreview and all you guys out there taking time to reply and discuss the matter! So far this great community has helped me choose camera type, then specific camera (got an E-M10 II with the 14-40 EZ kit) and now lenses. Thank you all!

Also, I realize as with most things  the answer "which lens(es)" is "it depends". So here are some more background and my thoughts.

Me: budget traveler, third time in India, beginner in photography

This is my third trip to India. I've visited most of the places at least once before. My last longer trip was 19 months. So even though it is a big and exciting trip, maybe not as much Once in a lifetime as for many other people. Last time I was there I had a really crappy point-and-shoot camera trying to take the same pics as the rest of the tourist crowd. This time I want to capture emotions, people, colors, quirkiness, chaos and, well, India! Also I'm a poor student.

The budget for the whole trip, excluding air tickets to India, is around $800 for three weeks (done it before on that kind of money). Buying a lens for $1000+ to remember the trip sounds a bit off. I travel with my girlfriend and two other friends, none of them bringing a cool camera or interested in investing 30 minutes to get that special photo. They want to see stuff, not take photos of them.

The photos I'm looking for is something different from my last trip. I'm not interested in postcard photos to prove I've visited the Taj Mahal; there are tons of great photographers that perfected that photo already and I don't feel the need to have my "own" Taj photo. I want the other India.

I see two scenarios for me during the trip: (1) walking around doing typical excursions with the group and (2) walking by myself focusing on taking photos. When I walk with my friends there is little time, or opportunity, to switch lenses. When (2) I can bring more than one lens, however as some of you pointed out, India is dusty and dirty.

What I've learned so far about focal lenghts

25 is suggested by quite a few of you. Seems like a good all-day lens that works well both for indoor (maybe a bit narrow indoors) and for street. The Pana 25 is cheap and would be ok for me I think.

15/17/20 are the lenses that got most of your votes. They are nice for indoors and also works great for street. Feels like the safe and reasonable choice. Some, like maggiemole, suggest maybe getting an even wider like 14 and/or bring an wide-angle converter.

Oly 12-40/2.8 would be a great alternative for me: one lens instead of several. However at $830 it's more that I plan to spend in total for my time in India so out of the question.

45mm f1.8 - cheap, sharp and good for people and street scenes. Not so good for indoors.

Where I stand today

My 14-40 kit lens is not great, but will bring me much, much better pictures than the camera (Fujifilm F500) I brought the last time. Last night I got so fed up with the whole "which is the best for me?" I considered only bring this lens and nothing else. However, now I'm back on track again and realize a new lens would be great! I would love to buy second hand, but living in Sweden there aren't a lot of lenses for sale on second market at the moment.

I see three options:

Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake (380$ here in Sweden)

This way the difference between general "bringing the camera along" and the "photo-sessions" isn't that big as the lens is still small.

+ All-rounder
+ Size
- Risk of banding in low light
- I already have the kit for 20 (at much worse quality though)

Olympus 17/1.8 (440$)

+ Good for landscape and narrow streets
- I already have the kit for 17 (at much worse quality though)

Olympus 45/1.8 (and maybe, maybe the Pana 25/1.8) (260$ + 200$)

The more bold (and fun?) option as suggested by @RobbieBear and @mentos77: the 45/1.7. If I choose this cheaper one I might even get my girlfriend to be OK with buying the 25/1.8 as well.

+ Crisp, bright
+ Non-intrusive
+ Great for people and action, and something different!
+ Cheaper than the Pana 20
- Bigger than the 20/1.7
- A bit too narrow for indoor

Once again, thank you all for your input! dpreview is such a great community.

So what do you guys say, is my reasoning solid or do you see other options?

//M

zxaar wrote:

Which places are you exactly going?

Delhi > Agra > Jaipur > Pushkar > Udaipur > (Kerala) Varkala > Backwaters > Munnar > Kochin

//M

Ok, so after hours and hours of thinking about which type of photos I'd like to bring with me home this is my plan:

I'll bring the kit-lens for most of the days. It's small enough for carrying around all day and the IQ in daylight seems just fine for my purposes.

I did order a Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25/1,8 MSC. I choose this over the Pana to avoid any risk of bandning (as I'll be leaving soon I don't have time to properly test it).

Yes, the 25/1.8 might be a bit too narrow for street and too narrow for indoor meal/general photos of my traveling partners. However, as I'm interested in both street, portrait and some general stuff, both at dusk and dawn, I think this was the right choice. And getting nice photos of other people is more important than getting a photo of my girlfriend eating a samosa at a restaurant without me having to get up and move a bit. I will also bring my small, crappy-ish point-and-shoot in case something comes up that really needs the width or the zoom and I have the 25 on (like my girlfriende eating a REALLY interesting samosa in a restaurant where I can't move around )

As a beginner I think this will be enough for now. Probably will get the 45 later, but not for India. The portraits I see coming out from the 25 is good enough for me for India. You could say it's the worst of two worlds (too narrow for indoors, too wide for street) but I rather see it as an OK compromise. And if this turns out to be a stupid choice, well, then I'll have to go back to India sometime soon

I do expect a lot of you not agree with me on this being the best option for me. However for my budget (got a $75 discount on the lens) I hope this will be just fine.

Thank you all for your valuable help. By getting so many opinions and views on the "best" solution I've learned a LOT. Now that I have a body and a lens, it's time to learn how to shoot great photos too. But that is a completely different story, requiring far more time than I have spent on deciding which lens to buy.

Best regards
M

mfroms wrote:

I just love dpreview and all you guys out there taking time to reply and discuss the matter! So far this great community has helped me choose camera type, then specific camera (got an E-M10 II with the 14-40 EZ kit) and now lenses. Thank you all!

Also, I realize as with most things the answer "which lens(es)" is "it depends". So here are some more background and my thoughts.

Me: budget traveler, third time in India, beginner in photography

This is my third trip to India. I've visited most of the places at least once before. My last longer trip was 19 months. So even though it is a big and exciting trip, maybe not as much Once in a lifetime as for many other people. Last time I was there I had a really crappy point-and-shoot camera trying to take the same pics as the rest of the tourist crowd. This time I want to capture emotions, people, colors, quirkiness, chaos and, well, India! Also I'm a poor student.

The budget for the whole trip, excluding air tickets to India, is around $800 for three weeks (done it before on that kind of money). Buying a lens for $1000+ to remember the trip sounds a bit off. I travel with my girlfriend and two other friends, none of them bringing a cool camera or interested in investing 30 minutes to get that special photo. They want to see stuff, not take photos of them.

The photos I'm looking for is something different from my last trip. I'm not interested in postcard photos to prove I've visited the Taj Mahal; there are tons of great photographers that perfected that photo already and I don't feel the need to have my "own" Taj photo. I want the other India.

I see two scenarios for me during the trip: (1) walking around doing typical excursions with the group and (2) walking by myself focusing on taking photos. When I walk with my friends there is little time, or opportunity, to switch lenses. When (2) I can bring more than one lens, however as some of you pointed out, India is dusty and dirty.

What I've learned so far about focal lenghts

25 is suggested by quite a few of you. Seems like a good all-day lens that works well both for indoor (maybe a bit narrow indoors) and for street. The Pana 25 is cheap and would be ok for me I think.

15/17/20 are the lenses that got most of your votes. They are nice for indoors and also works great for street. Feels like the safe and reasonable choice. Some, like maggiemole, suggest maybe getting an even wider like 14 and/or bring an wide-angle converter.

Oly 12-40/2.8 would be a great alternative for me: one lens instead of several. However at $830 it's more that I plan to spend in total for my time in India so out of the question.

45mm f1.8 - cheap, sharp and good for people and street scenes. Not so good for indoors.

Where I stand today

My 14-40 kit lens is not great, but will bring me much, much better pictures than the camera (Fujifilm F500) I brought the last time. Last night I got so fed up with the whole "which is the best for me?" I considered only bring this lens and nothing else. However, now I'm back on track again and realize a new lens would be great! I would love to buy second hand, but living in Sweden there aren't a lot of lenses for sale on second market at the moment.

I see three options:

Panasonic 20/1.7 pancake (380$ here in Sweden)

This way the difference between general "bringing the camera along" and the "photo-sessions" isn't that big as the lens is still small.

+ All-rounder
+ Size
- Risk of banding in low light
- I already have the kit for 20 (at much worse quality though)

Olympus 17/1.8 (440$)

+ Good for landscape and narrow streets
- I already have the kit for 17 (at much worse quality though)

Olympus 45/1.8 (and maybe, maybe the Pana 25/1.8) (260$ + 200$)

The more bold (and fun?) option as suggested by @RobbieBear and @mentos77: the 45/1.7. If I choose this cheaper one I might even get my girlfriend to be OK with buying the 25/1.8 as well.

+ Crisp, bright
+ Non-intrusive
+ Great for people and action, and something different!
+ Cheaper than the Pana 20
- Bigger than the 20/1.7
- A bit too narrow for indoor

Once again, thank you all for your input! dpreview is such a great community.

So what do you guys say, is my reasoning solid or do you see other options?

//M

If you can have only one prime in the bag while travelling, this is the one you are looking for. It can take great environmental portraits, and it also works admirably as a landscape lens. 25mm lenses can be too cramped do to its field of view. The Oly 17 is ok, but its not a stellar performer for its cost. The PL15 also works great on Oly cameras, as I mostly use it on my EM10.

mfroms wrote:

Ok, so after hours and hours of thinking about which type of photos I'd like to bring with me home this is my plan:

I'll bring the kit-lens for most of the days. It's small enough for carrying around all day and the IQ in daylight seems just fine for my purposes.

I did order a Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25/1,8 MSC. I choose this over the Pana to avoid any risk of bandning (as I'll be leaving soon I don't have time to properly test it).

Yes, the 25/1.8 might be a bit too narrow for street and too narrow for indoor meal/general photos of my traveling partners. However, as I'm interested in both street, portrait and some general stuff, both at dusk and dawn, I think this was the right choice. And getting nice photos of other people is more important than getting a photo of my girlfriend eating a samosa at a restaurant without me having to get up and move a bit. I will also bring my small, crappy-ish point-and-shoot in case something comes up that really needs the width or the zoom and I have the 25 on (like my girlfriende eating a REALLY interesting samosa in a restaurant where I can't move around )

As a beginner I think this will be enough for now. Probably will get the 45 later, but not for India. The portraits I see coming out from the 25 is good enough for me for India. You could say it's the worst of two worlds (too narrow for indoors, too wide for street) but I rather see it as an OK compromise. And if this turns out to be a stupid choice, well, then I'll have to go back to India sometime soon

I do expect a lot of you not agree with me on this being the best option for me. However for my budget (got a $75 discount on the lens) I hope this will be just fine.

Thank you all for your valuable help. By getting so many opinions and views on the "best" solution I've learned a LOT. Now that I have a body and a lens, it's time to learn how to shoot great photos too. But that is a completely different story, requiring far more time than I have spent on deciding which lens to buy.

Best regards
M

Good choice. 25mm is fine for street, it's a classic length used by many famous people. 17mm is good for street too, it's just a matter of style.

25mm is a good flexible compromise, often indoors you will be able to back up with your feet, and if 25mm is ever too narrow, focus on getting a more intimate shot, or on capturing details rather than getting everything in, they can often be more impactful photos. Its surprising how filling the frame with a subject can make a much more striking image. With India teeming with people, 25mm rather than wider may help your image be less cluttered. You will still need to use your feet with the 25mm, going both forward or back.

25mm will likely struggle to get group shots of people eating indoors, but photos of multiple people eating are some of the most boring images, in my opinion.  Shoot a few single shots of people at the table instead, and some 25mm shots of the food, and you can build a stronger story than just getting everyone around a table.  Get a smartphone snap of the whole group if you want to just capture a memory.

Enjoy the trip, looking forward to the photos.

I really didn't like the Panasonic 25mm 1.7, I'm glad you got the Olympus instead, even though it's a bit more money. I got mine new for a good price recently after waiting a long time for a deal to come up. Nice lens.