Quintesential M43 lenses

I carry the P12-32, the PZ45-175 and the P30mm in my EDC bag, and I am rarely left wanting for something else from day to day. I have some other stuff that stays at home till I need it for a different scenario, but the three afore-mentioned lenses are the first three I'd buy again. Then I'd repurchase the other three (O60mm, P42.5 and Sigma 60mm) I own. They're all used on a GX8.

If the OP wants to see some P30mm stuff, you're welcome to look here . It's a lovely lens and very versatile. That's the reason it's in the EDC bag instead of the O60mm.
_____________________________________
Some of the coolest things in life are really, really small.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roddyhays/

thinkinginimages wrote:

No love for the Lumix 14-42 II? This little competent underdog gets taken for granted because it's a kit lens. I use it a lot and have no complaints.

I rediscovered the Lumix 25 1.7 recently. I forgot the sharpness and smooth bokeh of this reasonably priced single focal length lens.

Of course, the venerable Lumix 12-32.

I don't think people realize how long these lenses have been around. 8-10 years. Wow.

Gone but not forgotten: The 14-42 PZ (power zoom) X version. There's also the 45-175 PZ. I had the 14-42 PZ on a 1st gen Blackmagic Pocket Cine, a sweet, smooth zooming, portable combo.

Yes the 25 1.7 lumix , completely underrated

Great lens

Henry Stamm wrote:

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

Don't know if you have any experience with the Oly 12-40 f2.8 , but if you had to choose which combo would you take ?

Oly 12-40 2.8 with 35-100 2.8

or

Pl 12-60 2.8-4 with 35-100 2.8

generationfourth wrote:

Even if you have any of the other UWA m43 options, even if you don’t like UWA fov, like myself, the new 9mm embodies what m43 is all about. Great value and a ton of fun thrown on a small body. The ultra close focus distance + capturing the subject’s full environment + the option to blur the crap outta the background all creates very unique composition opportunities that I never even thought of.

aside from the 9mm I’ll add the usual suspects: 20 1.7, and 14-140. A truly underrated lens: p35-100 2.8

i don't know if this 35-100 2.8 is truly underrated .. on ebayGermany you don't get any used one under 700 euros ..

or the 12-35 f2.8 perhaps.

I recently acquired a 35-100 f2.8, but for the lower range am still using the P 12-60 f3.5/5.6. Whether or what to replace it with is an open question.

Mark

In the UK, WEX sell used copies of the 35-100 f2.8 Mk1 for around £400 and the mk 2 for ~ £500 depending on condition.

JosephScha wrote:

Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 (amazing lens for it's price)

Agreed. I bought one for the size, but sold my PL 42.5f1.2 because the cheap version we so good.

108 wrote:

thinkinginimages wrote:

No love for the Lumix 14-42 II? This little competent underdog gets taken for granted because it's a kit lens. I use it a lot and have no complaints.

I rediscovered the Lumix 25 1.7 recently. I forgot the sharpness and smooth bokeh of this reasonably priced single focal length lens.

Of course, the venerable Lumix 12-32.

I don't think people realize how long these lenses have been around. 8-10 years. Wow.

Gone but not forgotten: The 14-42 PZ (power zoom) X version. There's also the 45-175 PZ. I had the 14-42 PZ on a 1st gen Blackmagic Pocket Cine, a sweet, smooth zooming, portable combo.

Yes the 25 1.7 lumix , completely underrated

Great lens

I have had a 25 1.7 sitting on my shelf untouched for the past few years. I just didn’t think it was good after selling off my pl 25 1.4. I am renting a xt30 + 35 2.0 and decided to mount the 25 1.7 so I have something to directly compare. Holy smokes don’t think I’ll be adding Fujifilm anytime soon

Is the 35 f/2 be the cheapest lens of its series? 25 f/1.7 is among the f/1.7 Panny series and it has many sample variation too. Could you sure you do not have a bad copy?

alcelc wrote:

Is the 35 f/2 be the cheapest lens of its series? 25 f/1.7 is among the f/1.7 Panny series and it has many sample variation too. Could you sure you do not have a bad copy?

Sorry wasn't clear the 35 f/2 is a really good one, probably the equivalent of Oly 1.8 premiums, similar price point all metal build, aperture ring, Weather resistance, plenty sharp.

Didn't mean to insinuate that the Panasonic was better, just that I should be happy with the primes and setup I have instead of wasting time/money jumping ship to another system.

Interesting. This is a M43 forum and this thread is about M43 lenses. What is the point to put in a non M43 lens here? If such non M43 lens can be adapted on M43 camera (obviously Fuji mount has a shorter fringe distance than M43), it is reasonable to do so. But...

And my biggest question was, how much had you paid for a 25 f/1.7 vs the 35 f/2? If the cheaper cost lens (around US$130 range for a new one in gray market of my region) could be comparable to 35 f/2, I think you should better rethink your current setup.

Also in reality, how better is the 35?

I don't own the 25 f/1.7 because it's focal length doesn't work for me. But I saw real life samples that if you have a good copy it is sharp as any M43 lenses. Therefore I also asked wether you had a bad copy?

Thomas Kachadurian wrote:

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

Quintessential M43 lens?
The Olympus 45mm f1.8 - lotta lens in a tiny package

Must keep?
12-40 f2.8

Richard2Go wrote:

At the risk of heresy:

Lots of posters here have mentioned the top of the line lenses, the Olympus Pros and the Panasonic Leicas. And they are all wonderful pieces of equipment.

But to me the “quintessentialness” of M4/3 is its compactness, that’s what attracted me and many other users to the system in the first place. If you’re looking at “quintessential” M4/3 lenses, I look at it as more a question of what is best adapted to the format itself, which means small is beautiful. The way I see it, quintessential M4/3 lenses aren’t necessarily the best, although all the lenses on my list can deliver great results in the right conditions (and I admit I’m not as familiar with Olympus as I am with Panasonic). So my list:

P12-32, P14, PL15, P20, P35-100f4, O17f2.8, O40-150f4.

Honorable mentions: P12-35f2.8, P35-100f2.8, O12-100. Not exactly tiny, but great performance in packages that are relatively small for what they deliver, plus weather sealing. I know there are others out there that may also meet the criteria, but to me the quintessential M4/3 lenses are the smallest and lightest ones, so that they take full advantage of the format.

I was confused too and answered my quintessential lens choice separately from my "must keep" choice.

To clarify, Oxford says:

Quintessential - "representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class"

alcelc wrote:

Interesting. This is a M43 forum and this thread is about M43 lenses. What is the point to put in a non M43 lens here? If such non M43 lens can be adapted on M43 camera (obviously Fuji mount has a shorter fringe distance than M43), it is reasonable to do so. But...

And my biggest question was, how much had you paid for a 25 f/1.7 vs the 35 f/2? If the cheaper cost lens (around US$130 range for a new one in gray market of my region) could be comparable to 35 f/2, I think you should better rethink your current setup.

Also in reality, how better is the 35?

I don't own the 25 f/1.7 because it's focal length doesn't work for me. But I saw real life samples that if you have a good copy it is sharp as any M43 lenses. Therefore I also asked wether you had a bad copy?

Look I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to mention other lenses here. All I was doing was providing context that I’m trying fujis system and found that I never really tried out my 25 1.7. It is a good copy. The 35 on fuji is good (let’s stop talking about it cause it’s not m43). Every camera and lens is pretty good nowadays. There doesn’t have to be a clear winner and better system. I don’t understand all the drama. Sheesh. always takes like 3 posts here to realize why I  should never come back lol

unhappymeal wrote:

Gyroscope wrote:

I have the laowa 7.5 and 10 f2 lenses, the leica 15 f1.7 and the leica 25 f1.4. I love having these small fast primes and they all have 46mm filter threads to make it simple using a a Nisi 75mm filter holder. None are weathersealed unfortunately, the only downside but I have my S1r for bad weather shooting.

I find myself rather intrigued with the olymous 12-100 though. It seems to be held in universally high regard which is not necessarily a given for a lens witb such a large range. Might be an option for some travel I have in my future.

Some people love it, I'm not one of those people. Every time I buy this lens, my reaction is "But why?". Why would I pay the size, mass and cost penalty when it doesn't absolutely blow the 14-140 II out of the water, it doesn't get me a lot more aperture and it's not optically as good as the 12-40 f/2.8 or 12-60 f/2.8-4. Maybe someone can explain the magic to me, but this is the second time I've purchased the lens and I'm pretty cold to it. It doesn't help that the lens + OM-1 takes up almost my entire Peak Design 5 L sling.

The slightly taller 6L might work better in that regard, I can cram two lenses near (but slightly shorter than) the size of the 12-100 into it (one mounted) and still have space for a 3rd smaller lens even if it's tight, eg A7R4 with 17-28 + 35GM + 75/1.8, I've not used it for M4/3 tbh since I had the 5L before and only got the 6L alongside the Sony kit.

Anyway, I agree, I think the 14-140 gets overlooked too often and it leverages the system's strengths somewhat better, it might not be quite as good as the 12-100 but a superzoom for me would be about convenience and the size and extra range of the 14-140 would win over for me... Then again I don't use a superzoom at all so what do I know. 😝 (I've used a borrowed 28-200 & 14-140 tho, not just speaking strictly off paper specs)

I'm still shooting both 35-100s and various tele primes on M4/3, I prefer using those to a super zoom. Probably gonna be taking the 35-100/2.8 on a 1 day trip to a concert soon. I'd usually grab the 75/1.8 but I think in this instance the zoom will work much better.

unhappymeal wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Definitely 12-100, for me it’s the essence of mft system.

Big and expensive? ;).

Today there is a £175 cashback, so it's only £1,024. 561g seems reasonable for a decent super-zoom.

The obvious comparator would be the Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 which costs £799 (without discount), has a shorter range, captures more light, and weighs 18g more.

My impression is that both give pretty good IQ, at least owners rave about both of them. You get Dual IS with the Olympus, a lens Fn button, and a snap focus ring. Weathersealing is also a differentiator.

I'd pick the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 over either of them. IRL I have different kit again. We all make different choices for our own reasons. Having options is good.

My MFT kit comes in at 3 sizes: tiny, small and smaller than my FF kit. I don't think MFT kit is especially cheap for its IQ and shooting envelope. You can get really good bargains on used MFT kit, if you want small, cheap and decent. Panasonic mk i lenses are especially attractive.

Andrew

This is the second time I purchased the 12-100 and I'm shooting it beside the 14-140 II. I'm...not really impressed. Is it better? Yeah. Is it 500 € and 250+ grams better? Nope.

I think I'd come to the same conclusion but that's subjective, a superzoom will never be my main workhorse or even my main walkabout/travel lens, however I can see people who just wanna pair one such lens with a single prime (PL9 or a fast wide/normal) reaching the opposite conclusion on the 12-100's value and bulk.