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

JosephScha wrote:

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.

(the following is intended to be heard in a friendly conversational tone, not the sneering, superior one that appears so often here on DPR)

I have the 42.5mm and also some Kenkos (10+16). Together I do not think they give anywhere the convenience, or the amount of usable shots that the 30mm will under the same circumstances. For a fella out and about in the garden with his camera and a stick to steady his shooting hand (viz: @Mark Berkely), there is nothing to beat the 30mm. I find I can start shooting my subject from six feet away and can carry on shooting until I are touching it with my lens. The 42.5mm on the other hand, with added shiny extension tubes, has a very limited focal range, a poor depth of field (as one stops down to get the same DOF as the 30mm you start to lose light) and I think it struggles to be as efficient in a normal 'close-up/macro' shooting scenario. It is certainly not my first choice when something exotic lands in the garden!

Indoors, on a table-tripod shooting flowers perhaps, it may come close, but even then the IQ of the 30mm is better for close focusing purposes. I wish it were otherwise, for who would not want it a better solution then the one you have? But 42.5mm + extension tubes is not better. Sure, the focal distance is less at a given 'close-up' distance, but the results do not justify that benefit. The 30mm, for all work from 3' to 1" is the better lens, in my humble opinion. And from 3' to infinity? Unless you are a pro looking for that $$$ quality, it's a close-run thing.

I also think the 30mm is quite good at short portraits, as well. It's fast enough in most circumstances, the bokeh is not bad, the subject pops out wide-open, and the contrast and definition runs the 42.5mm very close. The IQ is actually good enough to suffer cropping quite well, too, and there are not many lenses at this price point that manage that.

I'll finish this by saying that if someone told me to choose one lens from what I own to take to a desert island, it would be the 30mm - it is that versatile, and that good.  
_____________________________________
Some of the coolest things in life are really, really small.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roddyhays/

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.

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

Years ago, when my kit was just about all Olympus, I bought the 25mm f1.8 and only used it once or twice. Recently I bought the 25mm f1.7 and like before hardly ever used it, preferring the 20mm f1.7 II or 30mm f2.8. Strangely, When I had my Leica M9, I had five different 50mm lenses and constantly used every one of them. But for some reason, using a 25mm on MFT just doesn't interest me. Since I got the 17mm f1.8, the 20mm also fell into disuse. So as part of my downsizing, I sold the 20mm and 25mm along with my GX7.

(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.

Thanks for the insight.

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.

Not doing macro means you want the 42.5 , it can handle lightweight macro duties, plus you get a solid portrait lens in a small package.  it is also longer fl

• 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.

Neither one. Dump 'aka offload both/ until you decide what you really need or want... GAS fired, Hah. Hah... When it it is time to clean house, offloadBOTH.....Oh, by the way, there are superb lenses of high spec that are not macro, let someone who needs macro get the macros....well you did ask....  Close up is fine with lots of lenses and macro may no be in you future at all...but do not sweat it.... But follow you gut.... wait I do not think whith my gut says Carl Sagan.

\When in doubt, dispose, survey, offload, deep six whlle they are in fine fettle, both of them...you never neededthe 30mm anyway,,  I I know it is a laovely lens for those thatuseit wisely)and use the proceeds for the next GAS goodie.

Or keep the 42.5 idf you really love it do you?,,mm ....Or hold it for now.....me I am zoom guy so I would do portrits with my 12-35, are yuo bent stuck on primes.  Why?   Lighten up your kit...Why schlep multiple lenses when One will do?

I know I know...Not a response to the OP per se but comes from someone who also has too darn much lying unloved ad unused opics.  Ask you self what Focal lenthths do turn you on not what is RIGJT acoridng to the book....or percreived needs in the field.

think of the GAS/ers who yearn for one or both. Make someone happy>

Gerry, if I cared, I'd be worried about you!

Maybe, I don't know, just try and have a good sleep!

Sell both if you are not into macro nor portraits.

See how you go with the 12 and 17 alone. After a while you will know if you want your third lens to be wider or longer. Historic homes/buildings, you may rather want something around 7 or 8mm.

If you want a third lens right now so you can take it for travel, then something universal yet small, light and inexpensive like the 35-100/4-5.6 would complement your small 12 and 17 well. Or possibly the faster 35-100/2.8, it is still small for an f/2.8 and makes a good travel lens too.

bs1946 wrote:

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

Get the Panasonic 12-35mm/f2.8 II and sell the primes. A single-lens kit with this lens might be perfect.

Precisely.  A zoom has sufficed for many.  thus I sugggest another altrnartive if you are of open mind. Few are but one has to be honest, if sometimes unintellible to some.

Pete_W wrote:

bs1946 wrote:

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

Get the Panasonic 12-35mm/f2.8 II and sell the primes. A single-lens kit with this lens might be perfect.

But the OP is doing street. Maybe he went with the small primes for that? The 12 and 17 are two great lenses if someone likes small primes. And both have the snap focus clutch, that is otherwise only found in the larger/heavier pro lens range. Something I would sorely miss.

First, I would like to thank all of you for your great replies to my question. After a lot of feedback here and on a GX9 Facebook group I belong to, it seems that a lot of people made a case for keeping the 30mm and selling the 42.5mm and an almost equal number of people made a case for keeping the 42.5mm and selling the 30mm.

Plus a number of people also recommended selling both and replacing them with a different lens, along with one great answer that said sell them both and buy a second GX9 so I just have to change cameras instead of lenses. Well I've decided to take part of that advise and sell both lenses. I've listed both for sale in the wanted/selling forum, so if anybody is interested (hint, hint), please let me know. I've decided to just use my Olympus 12mm f2 and Olympus 17mm f1.8 for now and see if I even need a third lens.