Random thoughts on random MFT lenses

[vanfred]

I hesitated in posting this because everyone in this forum will know a lot more about equipment than I will ever know. If you have any suggestions on my lens selection, I would live to read them.

After a long absence from photography I have spent the morning comparing my strangely random collection of MFT lenses to see which ones I should sell and which ones I need to buy. I am sure nothing here will be a surprise to anyone.

So here goes:

7Artisans 7.5mm 2.8 compared to Samyang 12mm f2.0. I was surprised just how much wider the field of view is for the 7.5mm. It is also noticeable smaller than the Samyang. Apart from that in my opinion the Samyang is a much better lens. Sharper and better contrast. It really excels when stopped down, but at f2 it looks noticeably better than the 7.5 at 2.8.

Samyang 12mm compared to the Olympus 12-40mm 2.8 Pro at 12mm. I guess it is an unfair comparison compared to the price difference, but the Olympus is simply in another league. Nice and sharp, very good contrast and really nice colour reproduction.

So first decision of the day, I don't need the 7Artisan or the Samyang when I have the 12-40mm Pro.

Olympus 17mm 1.8. I had forgotten how good this lens is. On seeing the results on my large monitor, my first reaction was simply wow. Like the 12-40, it is sharp, great contrast and really nice colour.

Panasonic 25mm 1.7 compared to 7Artisans 25mm 1.8. Perhaps I have a poor copy of the 7Artisans, but I found it hard to focus and it looked flat, poor contract. But interestingly, I was also not impressed with the Panasonic, especially when comparing the results with the Olympus 17mm or the results from the 12-40.

Second decision of the day, I am not keeping either the two 25mm lenses.

Olympus 45mm 1.8 and the 60mm macro 2.8. Both really accomplished lenses, but not sure the 45mm offers much of an advantage over the 12-40mm except it is really tiny, which was the main reason I bought it. So will certainly keep the 60mm and probably the 45mm

Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 and the Panasonic 45-200mm 4.0-5.6. Not much t say about these lenses. I bought the Olympus because it was cheap, but have never liked the results, unless it is stopped down. So I bought the Panasonic as a replacement, but once again, I have never liked the results. Not great sharpness, or contrast. But perhaps that is just the way I am using them?

Third decision of the sell them both.

That means I will be looking at the Olympus 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300. And possibly the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 or possible the Olympus 25mm 1.2?

 

[dap35]

If you want an ultra wide option I would suggest the Panasonic Leica 8-18. I bought mine used but it is bright and sharp. I also sold my Panasonic 45-200 and replaced it with the Panasonic Leica 50-200. The PL45-200 is so much better in every regard.

 

[Jack Tingle]

WRT manual 25mm lenses: Agreed. Zooms have gotten so good, cheap "nifty 50s" don't make sense. My $75 Meike so offended me I gave it away to someone to use in low light. I have a 20mm f/1.7 for that.

WRT the 75-300mm: I have one & enjoy it. 600mm FFeq is at my limit for hand holding. The quality falls off a bit at the two ends, but not worse than other inexpensive zooms. At 300mm, part of that is often due to bad handholding techniques. Practice, practice, practice.

If you want specialized manual telephoto lenses, look at adapting old SLR lenses. My Minolta Celtic 135mm f/2.8 looks really good as a 270mm FFeq low light lens.

Wider lenses, not so much. My 55mm f/1.9 is just OK as a 110mm. It cleans up at f/4, but modern lenses are generally better. My old Hanimex-Praktika 35mm was horrible. Adapting it made it worse. Color & quality by Crayola. I gave it away to a local collector with the SR-T100.

 

[Ceanadach]

In think you've made really good choices. The Olympus 45mm 1.8 is an excellent low light prime with beautiful rendering and bokeh. Considering its value in the used market I would definitely hang onto it.

 

[StevoPhilo]

7Artisans 7.5mm 2.8 compared to Samyang 12mm f2.0. I was surprised just how much wider the field of view is for the 7.5mm. It is also noticeable smaller than the Samyang. Apart from that in my opinion the Samyang is a much better lens. Sharper and better contrast. It really excels when stopped down, but at f2 it looks noticeably better than the 7.5 at 2.8.

On wide lenses every millimeter counts. On a 35mm format, 24mm to 20mm is definitely wider. But 20mm to 16mm is even wider. So no multiply that by the crop factor. 7.5mm to 12mm is really a 15mm to 24mm difference and it's substantial. Laowa makes a 6mm which would be even wider than that of the 7.5mm. If you wanted anything that wide. I would recommend the Laowas. Alternatively, I've heard great this about the 8-18mm f2.8-4.

Samyang 12mm compared to the Olympus 12-40mm 2.8 Pro at 12mm. I guess it is an unfair comparison compared to the price difference, but the Olympus is simply in another league. Nice and sharp, very good contrast and really nice colour reproduction.

So first decision of the day, I don't need the 7Artisan or the Samyang when I have the 12-40mm Pro.

Smart choice considering the lack of AF and the price the 12-40 could be had at.

Olympus 17mm 1.8. I had forgotten how good this lens is. On seeing the results on my large monitor, my first reaction was simply wow. Like the 12-40, it is sharp, great contrast and really nice colour.

Panasonic 25mm 1.7 compared to 7Artisans 25mm 1.8. Perhaps I have a poor copy of the 7Artisans, but I found it hard to focus and it looked flat, poor contract. But interestingly, I was also not impressed with the Panasonic, especially when comparing the results with the Olympus 17mm or the results from the 12-40.

Second decision of the day, I am not keeping either the two 25mm lenses.

Never been a huge fan of either the 17 or the 25. I've heard better things about the 25mm f1.4 and of course the Olympus pro lenses.

Olympus 45mm 1.8 and the 60mm macro 2.8. Both really accomplished lenses, but not sure the 45mm offers much of an advantage over the 12-40mm except it is really tiny, which was the main reason I bought it. So will certainly keep the 60mm and probably the 45mm

The 45mm is stupid sharp for it's size and is so cheap to get that it's pointless to get rid of.

Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 and the Panasonic 45-200mm 4.0-5.6. Not much t say about these lenses. I bought the Olympus because it was cheap, but have never liked the results, unless it is stopped down. So I bought the Panasonic as a replacement, but once again, I have never liked the results. Not great sharpness, or contrast. But perhaps that is just the way I am using them?

Third decision of the sell them both.

That means I will be looking at the Olympus 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300. And possibly the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 or possible the Olympus 25mm 1.2?

I've only ever used the 100-300 ii and it was great for the price. I just hardly ever shoot that far so I got rid of it.

 

[Asherax]

Nice post. I'm simply assuming you want AF lenses, so to fill out your kit, perhaps the Pana 9mm f1.7 for the wide prime, to compliment the insanely good 45mm 1.8. The 12-40mm f2.8 basically renders everything else in that focal range obsolete, and given you already have a fast prime at 45, perhaps all you are missing is the Oly 40-150mm f4 pro, which is ergonomically and optically equivalent to the 12-40mm. It has the same filter thread, same weight, and size as well. Nice 4 lens kit that will basically do everything you need.

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!

 

[yardcoyote]

I like the 45mm f/1.8 because it isn't a zoom. My MFT kit right now is the E-M10ii with the 25mm f/.18, 45mm f/1.8 and 60mm macro.

 

[pietroroman]

I think we all went through that. We think we are tricking the system by finding incredible deals on a super cheap lens. Then just some time later we end up purchasing the good and expensive lens anyway.

My recommendation? Just skip the 70-300 or the 100-300. Go straight to the good, expensive options this time around. PL 50-200mm or any of the 100-400mm. Save yourself some time and money in the long term - the balance with the more expensive option might just actually even out.

 

[vcxz]

For telephoto, you can consider the 40-150 F4. It shares a filter thread with the 12-40 F2.8. Since you love the 12-40, I think the 40-150 is like a spinoff.

I'd ask if you really need 600mm equivalent. That's basically a birding focal length.

I picked up the 75mm f1.8 to do some distance street photography.

I've been struggling with the original Olympus primes as well. A lot of reviews praise them, but I'm not sure if it's because they're from so long ago. My 12mm f2.0 is a lot weaker in the corners than the 12-40. But I'm wondering if people praise the rendering of the 12mm because having blurrier corners moves attention to the center of the frame.

But the good performance of the 12-40 at 12mm is why some reviewers say the lens is a 12mm prime that also zooms.

 

[vanfred]

Thanks everyone for the replies and suggestions.

My photography revolves around museums, art galleries and old country house plus some landscape photography. That is why I experimented with the 7.5mm and 12mm, but they never gave me the results I was hoping so I always ended up using the Olympus 12-40mm which became my default travel lens. But maybe I should use a faster lens.

Nearby is a protected bird sanctuary that is teaming with all types of birds, and I am going to try to get more seriously into wildlife photography. I have experimented with an old Tamron 300mm 5.5 manual focus lens and that seems to be about the right length, but perhaps I should try the 100-400mm.



As was suggested in a post I have learnt that the old saying, buy cheap, buy twice, is mostly correct.

 

[dap35]

totally agree. this has been my journey.

 

[3dpan]

Thanks everyone for the replies and suggestions.

Nearby is a protected bird sanctuary that is teaming with all types of birds, and I am going to try to get more seriously into wildlife photography. I have experimented with an old Tamron 300mm 5.5 manual focus lens and that seems to be about the right length, but perhaps I should try the 100-400mm.

As was suggested in a post I have learnt that the old saying, buy cheap, buy twice, is mostly correct.

There is a concurrent thread on the 75-300mm lens.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68214647

Worth reading for the breadth of content.

And for inspiration, I recommend reading this review of the 75-300mm by Thomas Stirr

M.Zuiko 75-300 Assessment - Small Sensor Photography by Thomas Stirr

This article summarizes some earlier posts and provides an M.Zuiko 75-300 assessment based on spending time in the field with it.

smallsensorphotography.com

 

[vanfred]

Thought I should give some final feedback on this thread.

After reading all the really helpful responses I have sold or in the process of selling a few lenses and have already replaced these with a Panasonic 9mm 1.7 and the Panasonic 100-300 iI.



Thanks for all the replies

 

[Art_P]

I hesitated in posting this because everyone in this forum will know a lot more about equipment than I will ever know. If you have any suggestions on my lens selection, I would live to read them.

After a long absence from photography I have spent the morning comparing my strangely random collection of MFT lenses to see which ones I should sell and which ones I need to buy. I am sure nothing here will be a surprise to anyone.

So here goes:

Olympus 17mm 1.8. I had forgotten how good this lens is.

Still my favorite short prime

Olympus 45mm 1.8 and the 60mm macro 2.8. Both really accomplished lenses, but not sure the 45mm offers much of an advantage over the 12-40mm except it is really tiny, which was the main reason I bought it. So will certainly keep the 60mm and probably the 45mm

Never enjoyed 45mm as a prime focal length, nothing to do w it's quality.

60 macro was a sweet lens but I found it a bit short for bugs in the field, was using it w an extension tube and mc14. Traded it for the 90 macro.

Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 and the Panasonic 45-200mm 4.0-5.6. Not much t say about these lenses. I bought the Olympus because it was cheap, but have never liked the results, unless it is stopped down. So I bought the Panasonic as a replacement, but once again, I have never liked the results. Not great sharpness, or contrast. But perhaps that is just the way I am using them?

Third decision of the sell them both.

I swapped the 12-50 and 40-150 for the 14-150/II. Compact all in one that lives on my E-M5 in the car.

That means I will be looking at the Olympus 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300.

Had the PL 100-300, but never warmed to it. I don't think the slightly brighter aperture was worth the size/weight difference over the 75-300 (which I never wound up getting). Once I got the 300/4, never touched the 100-300

And possibly the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 or possible the Olympus 25mm 1.2?

I picked up the 8-25/4 and love it. No it's not a fast prime, or tiny, so probably won't fill that need. It replaced my 9-18 better range, better quality, but not quite as pocketable

Actually, my most used lens is the 12-200. I hear the 12-100 is a better lens, on a par w the 12-40, but I went for the extended zoom range, lower weight and price. (And haven't touched my 12-40 since)

Other random lenses that get occasional use:

75/1.8,

a mf fisheye,

Oh, and the PL 14/2.5 which lives on an ancient E-PL1

 

[vanfred]

Art_P wrote

Oh, and the PL 14/2.5 which lives on an ancient E-PL1

I am glad you mentioned your ancient E-PL1. It is funny how attached I am to a couple of me old cameras, especially my ancient E-P1. It has no technical advantage over a modern camera, but I think there is something special about the way it looks and handles. It will be a dark day if ever I have to sell it.

 

[Bassam Guy]

...

Olympus 45mm 1.8 and the 60mm macro 2.8. Both really accomplished lenses, but not sure the 45mm offers much of an advantage over the 12-40mm except it is really tiny, which was the main reason I bought it. So will certainly keep the 60mm and probably the 45mm

The 45 is a far different lens than the 12-40. My 45 f1.8 is much smaller (easier to pocket, less intimidating to people), faster by 1.3 stops, and has exquisite bokeh (unlike the my 12-40s "acceptable" bokeh endemic to zooms in general).

 

[Asherax]

...

Olympus 45mm 1.8 and the 60mm macro 2.8. Both really accomplished lenses, but not sure the 45mm offers much of an advantage over the 12-40mm except it is really tiny, which was the main reason I bought it. So will certainly keep the 60mm and probably the 45mm

The 45 is a far different lens than the 12-40. My 45 f1.8 is much smaller (easier to pocket, less intimidating to people), faster by 1.3 stops, and has exquisite bokeh (unlike the my 12-40s "acceptable" bokeh endemic to zooms in general).

Both great lenses, I have both, but I agree they both do very different jobs! I even have the 45 1.8 double as a fantastic little micro macro, working distance is perfect with 26mm extension tubes, but it also works beautifully with the MCON-P02, or both! (especially with the hacked firmware 4.6 on the E-M1.1 which allows it to in camera Stack)
...
Mainly though for low light, lightweight, portraiture.... beautiful Bokeh, and fast enough for any occasion, also so unobtrusive!... and at f4, tack sharp across the frame for brilliant reproduction work for my partners artwork.
...
The 12-40 lives on my camera as the main workhorse, beautiful lens in every respect.

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!

 

[ddharriman]

Your selling decisions look perfectly correct.
On the buying side, I advise the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6.

Best regards,