Mid-range zooms – sooo many choices!

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

A prime and my feet, though a small 15 to 22 f1.7 zoom would be nice.

Jamajuel wrote:

Loving the OM-1 and the PL100-400 is glued to it. I also still had my trusty PL12-60, which I also love, but there is of course a little gap there from 60-100. This is a focal range I do use a lot (I use a 70-200 a LOT on FF).

M43 is really spoiled for choice. Incredibly hard to choose. So I am mostly curious who here might have several of the choices below and why you'd use one more over the other.

Effectively this would be more for travel and walk-around. If I want max IQ, I would use the S1 with a prime anyway. Means also I rather want light and small.

Choices I am considering:

• New OM 40-150 f4: nice size and light, great weather sealing. Bit pricey though.
• Oly 40-150 f4-f5.6 plastic-fantastic: i had it as my very first M43 zoom years ago on a GX7 and did get a lot of great images. Cheap and light. But how much "worse" it vs others?
• Pana 35-100 f2.8: nice size and weight, fast aperture. But a bit pricey.
• Pana 14-140: been reading a lot of positive things about it. Would save me swapping to the PL12-60 almost entirely, but how does it compare to that one? Very light and small. Weather sealed too apparently.
• Olympus 14-150: I find not much about that one. How would that compare to the Pana 14-140 quality wise?
• Olympus 12-200: i find very little good info on that one. How much compromise is IQ on that zoom range?

Things I am discarding for subjective reasons:

• Oly 40-150: too big and heavy for what I want right now.
• Oly 12-100 f4: too big and heavy, tried it once, wasn't a big fan. It's heavier and bigger than the 40-150f4

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

I use the 12-100 f4.  It's a one lens solution for the low end of the focal length.  And it's smaller and lighter than the 100-400.

But, I don't like changing lenses.  So I use a second body for it.

If you want small and light, stick with the 12-60 and shoot at 60 until you need 100.

I have the following lenses which are under discussion:

PL 35-100 2.8

PL 50-200 ??

Oly 40-150 2.8

Oly 12-100 4.0

Pan 45?-175 ?? Auto Zoom.

and maybe one or two I've forgotten and a couple of primes in that range.

My choices:

Oly 12-100. It is not too large! Very sharp. Covers a very wide range. Probably most used lens now.

PL 50-200. Like it better than the Oly because of the greater zoom. Oly only if I need 2.8 at 150. This is a very much used lens. I like tele's. Slightly smaller and lighter than the Oly and the sharpness is on par. Good with the extender but so is the Oly.

35-100 seldom used now. Would use it if i were going light and traveling. Work mostly from car now so size and weight not as important. Very sharp.

Pan 45-175. Consumer grade lens which is very sharp, surprisingly so. Very small and light. A go to lens when I am using my infrared setup. If the aperture suits the light  conditions would not hesitate to use it for any photo.

tashiacis wrote:

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

A prime and my feet, though a small 15 to 22 f1.7 zoom would be nice.

This^^^^^^^ For me, my Siggy 56 is perfectly adequate in that range. Along with my PL 25 or Siggy 30. And soon to be PL 9.

Jamajuel wrote:

tashiacis wrote:

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

A prime and my feet, though a small 15 to 22 f1.7 zoom would be nice.

I have the 15mm and 42.5mm f1.7 primes. But that’s that’s not the focal range I’m looking for in this discussion.

Then you're better off with one of those f4 to whatever superzoom thingies for your 36*24 camera. Slow superzooms are not the forte of m4/3. They get big and clunky real quick. Case in point, Oly 12-100. m4/3 excels at smaller, faster primes. Like what you have, and lenses such as the 20 pancake, Siggy 56 etc

Jamajuel wrote:

1. Gnine wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

tashiacis wrote:

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

A prime and my feet, though a small 15 to 22 f1.7 zoom would be nice.

I have the 15mm and 42.5mm f1.7 primes. But that’s that’s not the focal range I’m looking for in this discussion.

Then you're better off with one of those f4 to whatever superzoom thingies for your 36*24 camera. Slow superzooms are not the forte of m4/3. They get big and clunky real quick. Case in point, Oly 12-100. m4/3 excels at smaller, faster primes. Like what you have, and lenses such as the 20 pancake, Siggy 56 etc

The 20 f1.7 autofocus is terribly slow and loud, I really did not like it and sold it again.

If I want max IQ and don’t mind less flexibility and zooming with my feet, I would take the S1 anyway. The Sigma f2 primes are even cheaper and lighter than the f1.2 zooms in M43 and the end result is just better IQ wise. If I had the S5, the weight would even be en par.

For me, the small primes are really nice on M43. Easy to just throw in the bag “just in case”.

Anyway, I really like many of the M43 zooms I’ve had so far (12-60, 50-200 sold unfortunately, 100-400, 8-18). Nice, light (compared to FF equivalent), robust and weather sealed most of them, really good IQ across the range.

That's exactly my point. Buy some smaller lenses and one of those superzooms thingies for your 36*24 camera, and forget about carrying around extra m4/3 gear. Your phone will do the rest. How much gear do you need?

Jamajuel wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

GutiWong wrote:

So difficult to choose

I think the following combo, but not sure which one suits me more.

What about a hybrid?

12-40 f2.8, 40-150 f4

that’s one option for sure (except I probably wouldn’t switch my PL12-60 for the 12-40 f2.8).

I kind of want the 35-200 because it’s f2,8 and also quite small and light. But when I want to travel light and leave the 100-400 at home, I probably want more reach…

That’s what I’d do, especially since I already have the 12-40mm.

Now I pair the 12-40mm and PL 50-200mm and TC 1.4x for hiking and nature stuff, but the latter is too conspicuous for urban travel. The 40-150mm has good reach, but is noticeably smaller.

I had the 50-200 and stupidly sold it. I discarded it here so far because it’s a bit more on the larger and more expensive side. Gorgeous lens though!

I have the SHG 35-100/2.0 and while it's the best portrait zoom I've owned (truly nothing like it) I don't consider it especially as a telephoto, plus the zoom range is modest. 50-200 is nice, I have a 4/3 version, but lots of overlap with the 100-400 while not giving much space at the wide end.

Two- or three-lens kit is perhaps your most important decision, because it has considerable impact on which lens, if any, to add.

Cheers,

Rick

Jamajuel wrote:

Gnine wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

1. Gnine wrote:

Jamajuel wrote:

tashiacis wrote:

What are you preferences? This is not a "help me choose / choose for me" question, I am genuinely looking for subjective experiences and preferences from actual use.

A prime and my feet, though a small 15 to 22 f1.7 zoom would be nice.

I have the 15mm and 42.5mm f1.7 primes. But that’s that’s not the focal range I’m looking for in this discussion.

Then you're better off with one of those f4 to whatever superzoom thingies for your 36*24 camera. Slow superzooms are not the forte of m4/3. They get big and clunky real quick. Case in point, Oly 12-100. m4/3 excels at smaller, faster primes. Like what you have, and lenses such as the 20 pancake, Siggy 56 etc

The 20 f1.7 autofocus is terribly slow and loud, I really did not like it and sold it again.

If I want max IQ and don’t mind less flexibility and zooming with my feet, I would take the S1 anyway. The Sigma f2 primes are even cheaper and lighter than the f1.2 zooms in M43 and the end result is just better IQ wise. If I had the S5, the weight would even be en par.

For me, the small primes are really nice on M43. Easy to just throw in the bag “just in case”.

Anyway, I really like many of the M43 zooms I’ve had so far (12-60, 50-200 sold unfortunately, 100-400, 8-18). Nice, light (compared to FF equivalent), robust and weather sealed most of them, really good IQ across the range.

That's exactly my point. Buy some smaller lenses and one of those superzooms thingies for your 36*24 camera, and forget about carrying around extra m4/3 gear. Your phone will do the rest. How much gear do you need?

How is that an answer to the question I asked?

Well, just buy whatever then. Doesn't matter what, because in a couple of months time, you'll have changed gear and  moved on anyway.

Jamajuel wrote:

Gnine wrote:

Well, just buy whatever then. Doesn't matter what, because in a couple of months time, you'll have changed gear and moved on anyway.

Why so judgmental?

Judgemental? No, just fact. I think you're just obsessing over gear. How much of it do you really need? Just work with a single system, and buy the lenses that work for you. You've already mentioned a few small primes for your 36*24 camera, a superzooms lens addition should be just what you need. As I mentioned, you're just going around in circles, having already been down this road before, what makes you think it will be different this time? It's not the gear that's the problem.