Critique my m4/3 lens road map...

I

ivandobski

Messages
522
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I've got my Panasonic G3 and bought a Panasonic 25mm F1.7 to go with it. I've just ordered a Panasonic 14mm F2.5 to cover the wider angle, will probably get the Sigma 60mm as a short telephoto within a couple of weeks and my slightly longer term intention is to get the Panasonic 100-300.

I reckon these 4 lenses will give me a good spread of focal lengths and the first three should be good enough that I won't outgrow them and fourth is expensive enough that I'll make damn sure I won't outgrow that either...

So given I like landscapes, have delusions of doing some documentary photography, think any street style shots should be taken from far enough away not to annoy the subject and can't see the harm in having a decent zoom for any odd wildlife/aircraft sojurn which I may embark upon what am I missing or what alternatives should I consider?

Oh and I also think most subjects can be improved with a shallow dof hence the prime heavy lineup.
 
The Olympus 45mm f1.8 is rather good and although I haven't had one I've read that the Olympus 75mm f1.8 is very good. If you want to take pictures from relatively far away and go for shallow DoF that good but rather expensive 75mm f1.8 might be worth a look. I don't know what they go for used but you might find a bargain. Or, you could go manual focus and pick up a film era 50mm f1.4 or even a f1.2.
 
Is it not the case the Olympus lenses don't have any IS? That's why I've not been looking at them anyway.

I don't mind manual focus but can't be bothered with manual aperture, metering etc etc. I did fancy the Samyang 12mm but decided the same money spent on the 14mm&60mm with change left over might be a better use of funds.
 
No, they don't have IS and neither do the primes you've bought or are looking at. Personally I don't miss it and certainly not for shots of people as the shutter speeds which IS would help at are IMO pretty useless for people as people move.

I just thought it was worth mentioning manual lenses, you don't have to meter with them as they work in aperture priority and they give you apertures (f1.2/1.4) that would be expensive with a native MFT lens.

PS.
I used to have a native Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and that was an excellent lens. MF though.
 
Last edited:
Well that's a bit of a kick in the nuts, I assumed that all the Panasonics had it so didn't even bother checking. Still, turns out it's not that essential so that's good news!
 
oh dear :D Sorry.

I've never found IS all that much use except on the longer lenses. I've watched IS reviews on Youtube but I don't take a lot of shots of still life at 1/2 second etc. For people shots I'd personally be looking to keep the shutter speed up over 1/100 and if the impact on ISO wasn't catastrophic I'd be looking at faster shutter speeds, 1/200 should be enough for slow / normal moving people and I'm not sure that IS will help a lot at these speeds.

I suppose if IS could be important to you you could think about the shutter speeds you'll be using and the subjects you'll be shooting. You might decide that you want IS if at all possible. I'd certainly choose an IS lens over a non IS lens if there was a choice and if the IS didn't push the cost, weight and bulk up too much and I'd certainly want IS on a long lens.
 
Realistically it isn't, but I had assumed that Panasonic lenses had it as all the reviews of Olympus lenses highlight the fact that they don't.
 
You might want something wider than the 14mm if you shoot a lot of landscape.
 
You've picked some gooduns there though I don't know much about the Sigma 60mm I must admit. As Woof woof said, the Olympus 45mm and 75mm are gems. The 75mm is quite expensive though (Maybe £400+). The 45mm is much more reasonable and is really a wonderful little lens. Really stands out as a gem of the m4/3 line up.

Otherwise you sound well covered. The 14mm is fantastic in that it offers pretty decent IQ in the tiniest package. There are marginally better wide primes but they're aren't much better but they are generally much bigger or much more expensive or both. It's another real stand out option.
 
Agreed, 28mm equivalent isn't wide at all for landscape. You could get the samyang 7.5mm fisheye and either use careful placement of the horizon or de-fish in PP. As it's so wide there is no worries about it being MF

Alternatively, the oly 9-18
 
damianmkv said:
Agreed, 28mm equivalent isn't wide at all for landscape. You could get the samyang 7.5mm fisheye and either use careful placement of the horizon or de-fish in PP. As it's so wide there is no worries about it being MF

Alternatively, the oly 9-18
Click to expand...

It's quite personal though isn't it? Must admit I could quite happily live (and do) with something in the 24-28 equiv. range. It's rare that I miss a really wide option.
 
rjbell said:
You might want something wider than the 14mm if you shoot a lot of landscape.
Click to expand...
damianmkv said:
Agreed, 28mm equivalent isn't wide at all for landscape. You could get the samyang 7.5mm fisheye and either use careful placement of the horizon or de-fish in PP. As it's so wide there is no worries about it being MF

Alternatively, the oly 9-18
Click to expand...

I know that the standard answer to what lens to use for landscape tends to be "Wide angle" but this really is a personal preference thing and of course it's not always about getting it all in, it can be about perspective too and that can work both for or against the wide angle option depending on personal preferences.
 
Ideally I would have gone wider, prob not fish-eye wide but wider than 28mm equiv - however I'm trying to keep it to a reasonable budget and the 28mm seemed to give the best width/cost ratio.
 
The m4/3 primes are superb, although for everyday practical use, I much prefer a good quality zoom as I always end up with the wrong focal length on. The Sigma 60mm is an absolute gem, I don't use mine nearly as much as I should. 14mm is plenty wide for landscapes, although 12mm is about the sweet spot for me.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
ivandobski said:
Ideally I would have gone wider, prob not fish-eye wide but wider than 28mm equiv - however I'm trying to keep it to a reasonable budget and the 28mm seemed to give the best width/cost ratio.
Click to expand...

I'd take a look at the panasonic 12-32. A great general purpose lens, wide enough for landscapes and absolutely tiny.

Instead of the sigma 60mm, possibly take a look at the olympus 60mm macro as that will give you more options.
 
Is this the 12-32mm that doesn't have a focus ring and with which manual focus is therefore controlled from the body? If the body supports the function.
 
Save all the hassle and just buy the 12-40 Pro.

It's sharper than most of the primes, versatile zoom range and relatively fast as f/2.8.

Despite owning pretty much all the primes (yes really) I haven't used them since owning the 12-40.
 
Nawty said:
Save all the hassle and just buy the 12-40 Pro.

It's sharper than most of the primes, versatile zoom range and relatively fast as f/2.8.

Despite owning pretty much all the primes (yes really) I haven't used them since owning the 12-40.
Click to expand...

I have the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 and just wanted to add that these very good f2.8 zooms are IMO an absolute revelation... and give the possibility of very FF like results at f2.8-f4. When I had a FF Canon 5D I used to use it a lot at f5 to f8 so the quality MFT f2.8 zooms give a very similar look at f2.8 to f4.

I don't know about the Oly f2.8 but the Panny has a surprisingly short close focus distance which is lovely for flower shots and the like.
 
woof woof said:
I have the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 and just wanted to add that these very good f2.8 zooms are IMO an absolute revelation... and give the possibility of very FF like results at f2.8-f4. When I had a FF Canon 5D I used to use it a lot at f5 to f8 so the quality MFT f2.8 zooms give a very similar look at f2.8 to f4.

I don't know about the Oly f2.8 but the Panny has a surprisingly short close focus distance which is lovely for flower shots and the like.
Click to expand...


For sure, I hear the Panny lens is fab, but I've not used it.

The good m43 zoom lenses are sooooo good that you don't really need to consider primes unless you want wafer thin DoF (yes, that is still possible on m43, all you doubters).

We are rather lucky in that respect :)
 
woof woof said:
Is this the 12-32mm that doesn't have a focus ring and with which manual focus is therefore controlled from the body? If the body supports the function.
Click to expand...

That’s the one, an amazing little lens.
 
Nawty said:
Save all the hassle and just buy the 12-40 Pro.

It's sharper than most of the primes, versatile zoom range and relatively fast as f/2.8.

Despite owning pretty much all the primes (yes really) I haven't used them since owning the 12-40.
Click to expand...

:agree:

My Oly 12-40mm Pro is never off my GX8. An absolutely superb piece of glass.
 
Well, I sold most of my m4/3 glass when I went full frame. I'm more interested in portraiture than landscapes but fwiw..
  • I've kept the 12-40 f2.8 Pro, it's just fab.
  • I'll keep the 45mm f1.8 'cos it's so good and has such low resale value.
  • I've still got the Panny 25mm f1.4 but not for much longer. I'd keep it if I was going to use it for low light indoor stuff or I did a lot of street photography.
  • I sold the 40-150 f4-5.6 - a bit of a meh lens
  • I sold the 100-300 - an adequate lens but I'm not a birder, I just didn't use it.
  • I kind of regret selling the 75mm f1.8. Lovely, lovely lens.
If I had to have just two - and I didn't have another system - I'd go for the 12-40, the 75 and some macro extension rings.
 
I did think of the 12-40 but it seems to be fairly pricey even second hand from what I can see. Also, I quite like the idea of primes as a way to simplify things a bit - doing what I can with what I've got rather then fiddling around with the zoom.
 
I would say that having a boatload of primes is going to be more fiddling about than using the zoom. I was going down the same route and planned on getting mainly primes - I now carry a 9-18, 12-40 and 40-150 (all Olympus) in my bag.
I love the 12-40, but the 9-18 seems to be getting more use atm.
 
footman said:
That is so funny, perhaps I'm the only photographer in the world not to have seen it already but it really gave me a good laugh this morning!
The choice of lenses isn't funny though. I use both of those and they are excellent.
Click to expand...

Letter to George is actually pretty true for me it's just taken me a lot longer as I've been going through the points since I was 10 years old.
 
I think it's a process that many of us go through but I think that maybe we have to go through it to arrive at the (pretty much) happy ending, if we ever actually get to a happy ending.
 
First time I'd seen the Letter to George as well and found it very amusing, if a little too close to reality for comfort. A little off topic, but when GAS starts to take hold these days, I quite often watch this video

View: https://youtu.be/iHe04brf1XI


It doesn't always cure it, but it does raise a smile every time :)

Cheers,

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
First time I'd seen the Letter to George as well and found it very amusing, if a little too close to reality for comfort. A little off topic, but when GAS starts to take hold these days, I quite often watch this video

View: https://youtu.be/iHe04brf1XI


It doesn't always cure it, but it does raise a smile every time :)

Cheers,

Simon.
Click to expand...
Wow where do I get one of those -1.8 cameras in cool pink!;)

Just got a GX80 to replace a Ricoh gx200 resisting the urge to buy lenses until I have got used to the camera.
 
Here is my m4/3 lightweight travel lens setup:

  • Panasonic 14-45 OIS - light, cheap, and very good IQ; 52mm filter size
  • Panasonic 45-150 OIS - light, cheap, and very good IQ; 52mm filter size
  • Olympus 9-18 - light, slightly more expensive but very good IQ; 52mm filter size
  • Hoya 52mm circular polariser
  • Olympus 17 1.8 - light, good value and I prefer the IQ to the Panasonic 20 1.7; 46mm filter size
  • Olympus 45 1.8 - light, cheap, excellent IQ; 37mm filter size

This setup will cover you from 18mm to 300mm full-frame equivalent and give you 2 low-light options as well. You can carry this setup all day long without getting tired. When I carried the equivalent range in full frame, I just ended up leaving most of my kit in the hotel because it was too heavy (for me).

If this is still too heavy, you can cut this further down to:
  • Olympus 9-18
  • Panasonic 45-150 OIS
  • Olympus 17 1.8
And this will still cover you for most situations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top