Quintesential M43 lenses

Mark Thornton wrote:

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.

Sounds like a bargain! I paid $750 USD for it new shortly before the mk II was announced, I think it was discounted to $850 and I got a $100 gift card along with it... I'm not using it as much as my 75/1.8 but it was such a good value and they're different enough that I doubt I'll sell it anytime soon.

Richard2Go wrote:

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.

I get what you're saying, but I question whether your criteria really defines what's "quintessential" when absolute compactness is not actually what's keeping the format alive. However, I would argue that relative compactness is. That's why I feel like the 40-150/2.8 is a "quintessential" lens - is it small? No. Is it relatively compact given it's capability? Considering there's no full-frame equivalent lenses that are 80-300/2.8 (or even a super-high quality 80-300/4 or f/5.6), I'd say "yes". It is literally the reason I stayed with MFT through Sony's rise as the dominant player in mirrorless - yeah, the bodies were stunning but there was no lens that gave me what the 40-150/2.8 gave me. It's really as simple as that. 🤷‍♂️

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.

B+W filters are the best I have used. The top Hoya filters are ok.

Sam Bennett wrote:

Richard2Go wrote:

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.

I get what you're saying, but I question whether your criteria really defines what's "quintessential" when absolute compactness is not actually what's keeping the format alive. However, I would argue that relative compactness is. That's why I feel like the 40-150/2.8 is a "quintessential" lens - is it small? No. Is it relatively compact given its capability? Considering there's no full-frame equivalent lenses that are 80-300/2.8 (or even a super-high quality 80-300/4 or f/5.6), I'd say "yes". It is literally the reason I stayed with MFT through Sony's rise as the dominant player in mirrorless - yeah, the bodies were stunning but there was no lens that gave me what the 40-150/2.8 gave me. It's really as simple as that. 🤷‍♂️

For the OEMs quintessential means profitable. OMDS are delighted with high end lens sales to new MFT owners following the launch of the OM1. The 10-25/1.7 and 25-50/1.7 seem like partners to the GH6.

Panasonic made the G100 and the 9/1.7 looks designed to go with that. OMDS have the OM5 and f4 zooms.

Smaller for the end use, seems like the message.  150-400, 300, 40-150/2.8 etc all small excellent lenses, compared to the alternatives.

Andrew

• Laowa 10mm f2 
• 12-45 f4
• 75 f1.8 

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Sam Bennett wrote:

I get what you're saying, but I question whether your criteria really defines what's "quintessential" when absolute compactness is not actually what's keeping the format alive. However, I would argue that relative compactness is. That's why I feel like the 40-150/2.8 is a "quintessential" lens - is it small? No. Is it relatively compact given it's capability? Considering there's no full-frame equivalent lenses that are 80-300/2.8 (or even a super-high quality 80-300/4 or f/5.6), I'd say "yes". It is literally the reason I stayed with MFT through Sony's rise as the dominant player in mirrorless - yeah, the bodies were stunning but there was no lens that gave me what the 40-150/2.8 gave me. It's really as simple as that. 🤷‍♂️

Oly and Panny paths into m4/3 differed. Oly envisioned a second, parallel system alongside the well-established 4/3 E-series of DSLRs. Hence, the Pen small cameras and small to tiny lenses being their only m4/3 offerings at the beginning..

I think this is a good point about Olympus and how there really were two distinct product lines, which goes a long way to explain why there would be big disagreements between what is "quintessential". If I was largely a E-Px or PEN-F user, my answer would likely be different.

For me, it comes down to convenience vs capability. For a long time I was willing to sacrifice the capability of something like the original E-M1 with the 12-40/2.8 as a "walk-around" setup in order to have the convenience of say the GF1 with the 17/1.8 - and indeed that setup truly went with me everywhere for quite a while. The convenience of having something that portable with it's basic WiFi connectivity so I could process and pay on the go meant I would gladly leave the E-M1 behind for casual shooting. The problem is that once smartphones got to the point where their quality (and sometimes capability) got as good or better than what I was getting with the GM1, with even more convenience with true pocketability, being with me always, access to editors like SnapSeed and immediate access to social media... The compact MFT market (for me), stood no chance of fitting into my life based on "convenience". Now MFT (again, for me) is about capability combined with it's (relative) compactness and ability to go anywhere despite the weather conditions I find myself in.

All that said, I get why some people see the Pro line as antithetical to what they value in MFT. And truly I hope that OM System finds a way to better balance convenience vs capability - that's why I hope the innards of the OM-5 make it into an E-Px at some point. I like my E-P7 a lot, but as I've gotten into macro more I've found that I really miss the in-camera image stacking (it will shoot the bracket, but won't combine them), which means I've been favoring the E-M1 instead. And of course the E-Px will never match the convenience of my smartphone.

Sam Bennett wrote:

I think this is a good point about Olympus and how there really were two distinct product lines, which goes a long way to explain why there would be big disagreements between what is "quintessential". If I was largely a E-Px or PEN-F user, my answer would likely be different.

For me, it comes down to convenience vs capability. For a long time I was willing to sacrifice the capability of something like the original E-M1 with the 12-40/2.8 as a "walk-around" setup in order to have the convenience of say the GF1 with the 17/1.8 - and indeed that setup truly went with me everywhere for quite a while. The convenience of having something that portable with it's basic WiFi connectivity so I could process and pay on the go meant I would gladly leave the E-M1 behind for casual shooting. The problem is that once smartphones got to the point where their quality (and sometimes capability) got as good or better than what I was getting with the GM1, with even more convenience with true pocketability, being with me always, access to editors like SnapSeed and immediate access to social media... The compact MFT market (for me), stood no chance of fitting into my life based on "convenience". Now MFT (again, for me) is about capability combined with it's (relative) compactness and ability to go anywhere despite the weather conditions I find myself in.

All that said, I get why some people see the Pro line as antithetical to what they value in MFT. And truly I hope that OM System finds a way to better balance convenience vs capability - that's why I hope the innards of the OM-5 make it into an E-Px at some point. I like my E-P7 a lot, but as I've gotten into macro more I've found that I really miss the in-camera image stacking (it will shoot the bracket, but won't combine them), which means I've been favoring the E-M1 instead. And of course the E-Px will never match the convenience of my smartphone.

All that said, my quintessential lenses from a "convenience" standpoint would be...

• Olympus 17/1.8 - Good build, solid image quality, reasonably fast in a reasonably compact form factor. It is the perfect balance between convenience and capability for me. I've shot so many great photos with this lens - if it was weather sealed, it would be in my kit today.
• Olympus 45/1.8 - Solid image quality, great focal length, surprisingly compact. Build quality leaves a bit to be desired (I chipped the body of mine, and I'm not even sure how), but the focal length forces compositions that are more narrow in focus and this cleaner.
• Olympus 9/8 Fisheye - The ultimate in terms of "convenience". When paired with a compact body, pocketability doesn't really get any better than this. While its small aperture pretty much limits it to outdoor use, the image quality is surprisingly solid and it's just so much fun to use!

Is this a trick question? 😜

I’ve bought and sold a bunch of M4/3 over time, but these are the ones I use most.

Voigtländer 17.5mm and 42.5mm (favorite lenses!)

7-14mm f4 (might be tempted by the 8-25mm instead)

14-140mm f3.5-5.6 II

12-40mm f2.8

35-100mm f2.8 II

50-200mm f2.8-4 and 1.4x teleconverter

My adapted lenses don’t count. 😉

Tom Caldwell wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Impulses wrote:

thinkinginimages wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

If someone robbed me of all my 20 or so lenses, I am 100% sure the first lens tat I would buy the next day is the..... cheap little 12-32.

I do like my Panasonic 12-32. My Panasonic 14-42 II would be my alternate choice. I don't even think about them being on the camera. They're solid, general purpose, lenses.

Could it be there's other people out there that like these.....kit lenses? After all the decades of kit lens bashing...

I think most of the Pana kit lenses are generally well regarded around here and viewed as well above average for kit lenses. The 12-32 was/is one of the cheapest smallest ways to get a 12mm, I don't use mine a lot but I like it.

The 12-32 is not that robust but its performance is excellent. I view it as a must-have disposable item, easy to buy used.

Andrew

Every time we updated a Panasonic body along came a 12-32 as a passenger. Better value than just buying a body sole. Hardly surprising that they are affordable.

Good glass and OIS as well. The body and their extending to use function allows them to be kept in a very small space and they do come in handy.

I suspect that some of the issues of robustness come from turning their extension in the wrong direction combined with some ample force. Never remembering myself i usually test the other direction if the lens shows any sign of resistance.

I read somewhere that once upon a time the so-cheap Canon 50/1.8 was a lens in every professional Canon dslr users bag as a form of last chance backup as even if it was never used it was cheap and compact and could at a pinch be used as an emergency body cap.

I was very glad to have a copy of this lens in Milford Sound NZ when it was so wet that the outside deck might has well have been underwater. I had intended using my 42.5/1.2 lens but discretion and my wallet decided that the 12-32 was wiser as I could afford to wipe it out even if the camera body was more of a mental challenge.

In any case short of dropping the kit in a bucket of water it could not have been any wetter.

Both the camera and lens survived after a careful slow drying and still work flawlessly today.

Weather sealed? What weather sealed? But I do not make a habit out of getting my gear so wet.

Hear hear!

I had the opportunity, no, the honour to fly alongside a Spitfire. I ummed and arred over which lens to take in the helicopter. and eventually settled on the compact-monster that is the 12-32mm - and it was ideal.

It didn't get in the way, it was light, it was sharp - just perfect.

Spitfire with the white cliffs of Dover in the background.

Cheers,
Paul

amipal wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

Impulses wrote:

thinkinginimages wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

If someone robbed me of all my 20 or so lenses, I am 100% sure the first lens tat I would buy the next day is the..... cheap little 12-32.

I do like my Panasonic 12-32. My Panasonic 14-42 II would be my alternate choice. I don't even think about them being on the camera. They're solid, general purpose, lenses.

Could it be there's other people out there that like these.....kit lenses? After all the decades of kit lens bashing...

I think most of the Pana kit lenses are generally well regarded around here and viewed as well above average for kit lenses. The 12-32 was/is one of the cheapest smallest ways to get a 12mm, I don't use mine a lot but I like it.

The 12-32 is not that robust but its performance is excellent. I view it as a must-have disposable item, easy to buy used.

Andrew

Every time we updated a Panasonic body along came a 12-32 as a passenger. Better value than just buying a body sole. Hardly surprising that they are affordable.

Good glass and OIS as well. The body and their extending to use function allows them to be kept in a very small space and they do come in handy.

Hear hear!

I had the opportunity, no, the honour to fly alongside a Spitfire. I ummed and arred over which lens to take in the helicopter. and eventually settled on the compact-monster that is the 12-32mm - and it was ideal.

It didn't get in the way, it was light, it was sharp - just perfect.

Spitfire with the white cliffs of Dover in the background.

Cheers,
Paul

The G9 is no slouch either, and together with your skill and the 12-32mm lens, you have a photo that will always be remembered. Which M43 lenses are quintessential, inexpensive, and  reliable enough to buy on the used market? In other words, a three bagger, in baseball parlance.

PhotoMac503 wrote:

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

Olympus 12-100 f/4better than 40-150 f/4?
Thx

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.

No 9-18? It's a little dated and it's a shame Oly never updated with a better build, but it and the 35-100 f4-5.6 make up a zoom range that few other ILCs can mimic at anywhere near the same size. There's similarly sized (and better/wider tbh) UWA zooms on EF-M and APS-C E mount, but no tiny teles of the same quality as M4/3's IMO. I gave away my 9-18 years ago tbh, and then sold the PL8-18 that replaced it when I started shooting FF, but that's mostly because when I'm shooting UWA I'm willing to make a size/bulkiness sacrifice.

I've kept all my primes and teles, and I'm still using the latter a lot (Oly 75/1.8 more than anything)... If I needed a really compact UWA option again, I'm not sure whether I'd reclaim a 9-18 or whether I'd go with a pair of primes like the PL9 or 10/2 (or the 7.5/2,012/2 & 20/1.7 I already have). That zoom's range is really convenient IMO, so is the 7-14 f4's but that one starts to get bulkier and has more issues with Oly bodies.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Sam Bennett wrote:

I get what you're saying, but I question whether your criteria really defines what's "quintessential" when absolute compactness is not actually what's keeping the format alive. However, I would argue that relative compactness is. That's why I feel like the 40-150/2.8 is a "quintessential" lens - is it small? No. Is it relatively compact given it's capability? Considering there's no full-frame equivalent lenses that are 80-300/2.8 (or even a super-high quality 80-300/4 or f/5.6), I'd say "yes". It is literally the reason I stayed with MFT through Sony's rise as the dominant player in mirrorless - yeah, the bodies were stunning but there was no lens that gave me what the 40-150/2.8 gave me. It's really as simple as that. 🤷‍♂️

Oly and Panny paths into m4/3 differed. Oly envisioned a second, parallel system alongside the well-established 4/3 E-series of DSLRs. Hence, the Pen small cameras and small to tiny lenses being their only m4/3 offerings at the beginning..

Panny had no ILCs, having put a toe into the 4/3 format and bravely running away. So they came into m4/3 with a more ambitious lineup of G mini DSLRs, GH video-centric DSLRs and GF rangefinderish cameras, supporting a large array of lenses. They kept those all going for quite awhile. Now, it seems like the advanced cameras and lenses are the ones receiving further development.

Once Oly decided m4/3 was the future they shifted focus from an all-small lineup to a full system, with cameras and lenses to suit all photographic pursuits. What they develop going forward depends on what sells today. I just don't see them adding pancake primes. But hey, most of those are still available.

Cheers,

Rick

TBH I think that system history short changes Pana, outside of like the 9-18 and maybe the 75/1.8 most of the really great yet really compact lenses in the system have come from Pana (including the better pancakes, the better compact kit zooms, and the smaller/lighter high end zooms)... Never mind the smallest bodies by far. I'm not knocking Oly btw, I've owned two OM-Ds and at least 5 Oly lenses, the body cap lenses are a pretty neat disguise for my GX850 even...

Oly pretty much gave up on the E-PM line after the GM came out and even the E-PL line withered on the vine for far too long until the recent E-P7 which is sort of an E-P/PL amalgamation (and not available in the US). I really think OM could do something neat and unique in that space if they wanted, but it's entirely possible there just isn't a very profitable market for premium small bodies.

If only one lens is allowed then it has to be the: Panasonic 14-140 ll.   Even though I now shoot olympus 😁

Adrian Harris wrote:

If only one lens is allowed then it has to be the: Panasonic 14-140 ll. Even though I now shoot olympus 😁

Nothing wrong with the 14-140 on an Oly body IMO, other than the lack of Dual IS and full ProCap compatibility, but I'd argue Oly IBIS is plenty at those FLs. I was pretty happy with several Pana zooms on my Oly bodies for years...