Quintesential M43 lenses

Everyone will have their own opinion on this, but as a guy firmly, and probably for the rest of my life in the M43 camp, there are a few lenses that never let me down. If I am unhappy with an image from these lenses, it's the light, the subject, or my talent, not the lens.

If someone robbed me of all my lenses (and I have more than 10), these are what I would buy the next day:

Laowa 7.5mm f2

Panasonic Leica 15mm F1,7

Olympus 40-150mm f2.8

Eventually I'd fill in with others, but I could get by with just those.

What are yours?

Tom

15/1.7

25/1.8 (and Mitakon 25/0.95)

45/1.8

75/1.8

and maybe, just maybe 12-45/4.0, P 45-150

The Olympus 12-100 is the best lens I've ever used in any format.

oly 12-100 f4 for outdoor/versatility and landscape

voigtlander 17.5  for its fun to use, street, environmental portraits and low light

oly 45 f1.2  portrait and landscape

oly 300f4 wildlife

+ my yashicamat TLR   for medium format film fun & as a reminder you don’t need the newest camera / lens to take great pictures

12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8, MC14 and maybe 8-25/4 (or Laowa 7.5mm or 10mm), plus PL25/1.4 and 60/2.8 macro.  I suspect a Samyang fisheye would creep in at some stage.

Andrew

It was 2015.

14~45 f/3.5-5.6, a very old lens but has outstanding performance as a kit class lenses.

7-14 f/4, relatively small of 300g only, sharp edge to edge on wide open, an affordable ultra wide angle zoom lens, sperically for Panny shooters.

14~140 f/3.5-5.6 mk-I & mk-II. 10X zoom of 265g only, versatile zoom range but having IQ comparable to premium class lenses... Excellent single lens solution for those who hesitate to swap lenses in the field.

12~32 f/3.5-5.6, a 70g tiny pancake lens at around US$100 having reasonably acceptable IQ. A great example on what originally M43 was designed for: size and weight, IQ and cost.

300 f/4 Pro for sure (if I had money, probably 150-400 instead)

12-100 f/4

20 f/1.4

My 40-150 f/2.8 was a lemon, so I can't say it. My 8-25 f/4 has not got much use to confirm it's a champ.

LeonardoV wrote:

300 f/4 Pro for sure (if I had money, probably 150-400 instead)

12-100 f/4

20 f/1.4

My 40-150 f/2.8 was a lemon, so I can't say it. My 8-25 f/4 has not got much use to confirm it's a champ.

I just compared my teles against each other on an OM1.  The 40-150/2.8 performed really well.  At the same distance and f4, it was quite good cropped to the same part of the subject as the 300/4.

The 40-150mm was discounted to £924 when I bought it, otherwise a used 35-100/2.8 would now be mine.

Do you use filters on your teles?  I can see a noticeable loss of IQ using them on all of mine.

Andrew

Interesting thread.  I don't have any lenses that are not quintessential.  What I have in my bag is what counts.  Right now, that's PL 35-100 f2.8, PL 50-200, Sigma 30 f1.4, and if it was back from repair, my PL 12-60

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Do you use filters on your teles? I can see a noticeable loss of IQ using them on all of mine.

Whose filters do you use, out of interest? Hoya make pretty good ones, though I don’t know if they hold up to long tele use. For that the glass surfaces must be extraordinarily planar as you apparently know.

I tend to use Hoya. I just made tedolf happy by posting a crop from using the 300/4 with and without a Hoya 77mm HMC UV(C) “fully coated” filter. The loss of IQ is not hard to see. Also failed with 72mm and 67mm Hoyas on other teles. Not had an issue with normal to UWA lenses.

Maybe I should buy a Zeiss T* protective filter and see how that does. The locking mechanism on the 300/4 hood doesn’t give me as much confidence as the 40-150/2.8 and it’s a more expensive lens. Olympus make a prf-zd72 which is a lot cheaper than the Zeiss.

Andrew

ahaslett wrote:

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Do you use filters on your teles? I can see a noticeable loss of IQ using them on all of mine.

Whose filters do you use, out of interest? Hoya make pretty good ones, though I don’t know if they hold up to long tele use. For that the glass surfaces must be extraordinarily planar as you apparently know.

I tend to use Hoya. I just made tedolf happy by posting a crop from using the 300/4 with and without a Hoya 77mm HMC UV(C) “fully coated” filter. The loss of IQ is not hard to see. Also failed with 72mm and 67mm Hoyas on other teles. Not had an issue with normal to UWA lenses.

Maybe I should buy a Zeiss T* protective filter and see how that does. The locking mechanism on the 300/4 hood doesn’t give me as much confidence as the 40-150/2.8 and it’s a more expensive lens. Olympus make a prf-zd72 which is a lot cheaper than the Zeiss.

Andrew

My 40-150's hood broker apart without notice. I don't have any issue with 300/4 hood.

I don't and didn't use filters (when I had 40-150/2.8). Lens was somehow heavily decentered and with only a central "circle" with decent but imperfect sharpness, every area outside inner 30% circle was real mud.

LeonardoV wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Do you use filters on your teles? I can see a noticeable loss of IQ using them on all of mine.

Whose filters do you use, out of interest? Hoya make pretty good ones, though I don’t know if they hold up to long tele use. For that the glass surfaces must be extraordinarily planar as you apparently know.

I tend to use Hoya. I just made tedolf happy by posting a crop from using the 300/4 with and without a Hoya 77mm HMC UV(C) “fully coated” filter. The loss of IQ is not hard to see. Also failed with 72mm and 67mm Hoyas on other teles. Not had an issue with normal to UWA lenses.

Maybe I should buy a Zeiss T* protective filter and see how that does. The locking mechanism on the 300/4 hood doesn’t give me as much confidence as the 40-150/2.8 and it’s a more expensive lens. Olympus make a prf-zd72 which is a lot cheaper than the Zeiss.

Andrew

My 40-150's hood broker apart without notice. I don't have any issue with 300/4 hood.

I don't and didn't use filters (when I had 40-150/2.8). Lens was somehow heavily decentered and with only a central "circle" with decent but imperfect sharpness, every area outside inner 30% circle was real mud.

Very happy with mine.

Andrew

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

I tend to use Hoya.

Interesting. Did you get them from a trustworthy shop? I ask because Hoya filters are very widely counterfeited. I wouldn’t want to buy them from eBay or a third-party seller on Amazon, for example.

Maybe I should buy a Zeiss T* protective filter and see how that does.

The German companies B+W and Heliopan make very fine filters with typically brass mounts and Schott glass. Of course they are expensive.

I tested a 77 mm Heliopan carefully with my old Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 when I used a Nikon D800 and couldn’t detect a deterioration in image quality.

Sorry if I’m telling you things you know very well.

I buy my filters from shops but it’s a good point.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I see Wex stock B+W.  Robert White carry Zeiss and Hasselblad.  All similar prices, depending on materials and coatings.  Those titanium ones are pricey!

Andrew

Since the 28-200 has become a favorite on my 7R3, it could be that as I become more attached to the OM-1 that the 12-100 might be in my future.

- G