Panasonic 30mm f2.8 Macro vs 42.5mm f1.7, Which one would you keep?

When I returned to MFT last December, after a long absence, I went on an insane buying GAS fueled spree. In May, I finally got control and started selling off a lot of what I bought. Now I'm down to my GX9 plus the Olympus 12mm f2 and 17mm f1.8, along with Lumix 30mm f2.8 Macro, and the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7. But, I want to get down to a three lens kit that I will use regularly with nothing sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

The two Olympus lenses are my favorites and most used, so they aren't going anywhere. That brings me to the subject of this post; between the 30mm f2.8 Macro and the 42.5 f1.7 I have to decide which one I want to keep and which one to sell and I am struggling to make a choice.

• No doubt the best use for the 42.5 is portraits, but I haven't shot a portrait in several years and don't expect to suddenly start now.
• Because of the Covid lockdown, I bought the 30mm to get into macro in my wife's garden. But the weather has been terrible here this year, I haven't done any macro, and now that the Covid restrictions are starting to lift, I just don't see myself out in the garden hunting down little bugs or doing flower portraits.
• My photography has focused around landscapes, historic homes and other buildings, plus travel, which includes some street photography. Thanks to Covid, there has been zero travel over the past year except to the surrounding towns but hopefully I will get in some extended travel over the summer now that the restrictions are lifting.

So I would appreciate any thoughts on which one of these would be a better choice as a general purpose third lens. Thanks.

bs1946 wrote:

When I returned to MFT last December, after a long absence, I went on an insane buying GAS fueled spree. In May, I finally got control and started selling off a lot of what I bought. Now I'm down to my GX9 plus the Olympus 12mm f2 and 17mm f1.8, along with Lumix 30mm f2.8 Macro, and the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7. But, I want to get down to a three lens kit that I will use regularly with nothing sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

The two Olympus lenses are my favorites and most used, so they aren't going anywhere. That brings me to the subject of this post; between the 30mm f2.8 Macro and the 42.5 f1.7 I have to decide which one I want to keep and which one to sell and I am struggling to make a choice.

• No doubt the best use for the 42.5 is portraits, but I haven't shot a portrait in several years and don't expect to suddenly start now.
• Because of the Covid lockdown, I bought the 30mm to get into macro in my wife's garden. But the weather has been terrible here this year, I haven't done any macro, and now that the Covid restrictions are starting to lift, I just don't see myself out in the garden hunting down little bugs or doing flower portraits.
• My photography has focused around landscapes, historic homes and other buildings, plus travel, which includes some street photography. Thanks to Covid, there has been zero travel over the past year except to the surrounding towns but hopefully I will get in some extended travel over the summer now that the restrictions are lifting.

So I would appreciate any thoughts on which one of these would be a better choice as a general purpose third lens. Thanks.

Given the close focus abilities of the 30/2.8 if i had to choose it'll be the one I'd keep

I have it and love it. But i do also like my oly 45/1.8...

bs1946 wrote:

When I returned to MFT last December, after a long absence, I went on an insane buying GAS fueled spree. In May, I finally got control and started selling off a lot of what I bought. Now I'm down to my GX9 plus the Olympus 12mm f2 and 17mm f1.8, along with Lumix 30mm f2.8 Macro, and the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7. But, I want to get down to a three lens kit that I will use regularly with nothing sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

The two Olympus lenses are my favorites and most used, so they aren't going anywhere. That brings me to the subject of this post; between the 30mm f2.8 Macro and the 42.5 f1.7 I have to decide which one I want to keep and which one to sell and I am struggling to make a choice.

• No doubt the best use for the 42.5 is portraits, but I haven't shot a portrait in several years and don't expect to suddenly start now.
• Because of the Covid lockdown, I bought the 30mm to get into macro in my wife's garden. But the weather has been terrible here this year, I haven't done any macro, and now that the Covid restrictions are starting to lift, I just don't see myself out in the garden hunting down little bugs or doing flower portraits.
• My photography has focused around landscapes, historic homes and other buildings, plus travel, which includes some street photography. Thanks to Covid, there has been zero travel over the past year except to the surrounding towns but hopefully I will get in some extended travel over the summer now that the restrictions are lifting.

So I would appreciate any thoughts on which one of these would be a better choice as a general purpose third lens. Thanks.

You have no redundancy here, and a nice sequence of prime focal lengths.

42.5 is also a good low light lens, and has OIS.

The 30/2.8 is larger and slower, and you're not fond of macro.

I'd replace the 30/2.8 with the much smaller 25/1.8.

(my prime sequence is 7.5/2, 15/1.7, 25/1.8, 42.5/1.7)

My 1.2kg small kit contains these 4 primes, plus the 12-32 and the 45-150.

SInce you have no lens giving you a decent tele photo range I'd keep the 42,5mm and drop the 30/2.8 macro. Get some cheap and light extension rings to enable closeup shots (macro-ish) with the lenses you've got.

Eric Nepean wrote:

You have no redundancy here, and a nice sequence of prime focal lengths.

42.5 is also a good low light lens, and has OIS.

The 30/2.8 is larger and slower, and you're not fond of macro.

Well, they both have OIS.  All Panasonic lenses (zooms or primes) that have a focal length greater than 25mm have OIS.

But I agree that if the OP is not going to do macro photography, the 42.5 would likely be more useful.

bs1946 wrote:

• My photography has focused around landscapes, historic homes and other buildings, plus travel, which includes some street photography. 

All points to something wider than the 4.2.5

And having the macro option is always good...you never know!

That way you keep both the macro and the tele / portrait capability.

I have both these lenses and the 30mm is by far and away more useful to me than the 42.5mm. I rarely use the latter unless I know I am going into poor light and might meet some faces. I find the 30mm a great general purpose walkabout lens (I call it my 'nifty sixty', good for street, landscape, buildings, cars, people and so on. Plus it has not just a macro capability, but the ability to take photos of anything at any distance - food, product, slides, flowers, and all of that stuff you can never get close to. And then it does macro too.

Macro photos from the 42.5mm with either extension tubes or an achromat are awkward in comparison to the macro capabilities of the 30mm. Optically I see little difference between them in good light and I like the way both lenses are finished. I do dislike the 37mm filter size of the 42.5mm. It wears a step-up ring as a result which is not a hassle.

I have some pics hereif you need any proof of what you can do with the 30mm. I hope you are happy with whatever you decide, of course. It's all good.

BBbuilder467 wrote:

I bought the 30mm f/2.8 specifically for flowers and nature close-ups. It's perfect for that if you don't go much beyond 1:2, but 1:1 is nearly impossible in real world, so it's not much good for insects.

I politely disagree. I admit it is may not be as convenient as the Oly 60 for macro, but it still takes a decent photo of a fly or two.

I could spend all day in my garden with it.

Absolutely!

If you do decide to keep the 42.5mm, you could always add an extension tube to your kit for the occasional macro shot. The 42.5mm already focuses pretty close so a cheap set of 10mm+16mm tubes will take it to true macro magnification.

The 30mm F2.8 macro has no problem getting quite close to insects.

I assume you sometimes shoot macro shots and might do so again at some future time.  If I were you, I'd keep the 42.5mm f/1.7 (a very good portrait lens) and buy a set of macro extension tubes, I have Mieke automatic macro tube set (10mm & 16mm) I think about $19 on Amazon.   10mm behind the 42.5mm f/1.7 will give you good magnification.  16mm behind the 42.5mm/f1.7 gives you more magnification (and closer focus).  I have never tried both stacked but 26mm behind the 42.5mm f/1.7 should be incredible.

Sounds like you don't need the 42.5 if you aren't doing portraits. It has other uses, such as when you need to isolate the subject. The short telephoto plus the wide aperture can give you nice background blurring.

Being a macro lens, the 30/2.8 is well corrected and sharp even at non macro distances (not that the 42.5 isn't sharp). It makes a nice lens for copy work plus the focal length is more useful.

Great Pics.

And it does appear to be a great lens.

R