If the camera store is open tomorrow I'm going to try to make it down to look. As I start to plan a system based around an OM-D E-M5, I'm looking at what lenses I might want. I know there are some great ones out there - 2,0/12, 1,8/45 from Oly and the Leica'd 1,4/25 from Panny. But what lenses should I avoid? Are there any lenses that aren't worth the money? Any panny lenses that cause a lot of problems with an Oly body?

TIA,
Tony

17/2.8

The only thing I know is I sold my P14 2.5 and Oly 14-42II as I wasn't quite satisfied with their outcomes, but I can't say they're not worth the money, because they're quite cheap.

__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jyc860923/
Panasonic DMC-GF3
Olympus PEN E-PL5
Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm f/1.4
Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH/MEGA O.I.S.
Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 MEGA O.I.S.
Sigma Art 60mm F2.8 DN
Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 ASPH
M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 II
mecablitz 44 AF-1 digital

I think this is very much an individual thing. Many people are very happy with the 17, for example. To me, the various f/0.95 lenses are not worth the money. But if razor thin DOF is important to you, they might be well worth it.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

Just as many people out there that are happy with Panasonic's 14mm. This is a tough thread to answers.

The 14-42X seems to be a source of incessant problems. 45-175X is on thin ice too.

__________________
Olympus E-M5, Sony A65, lenses.

I agree. Other than these two, it's REALLY REALLY hard to go too far wrong with m43 lenses. The standouts are, IMHO:
8/3.5 (fisheye)
12/2.0
20/1.7
25/1.4
45/1.8
45/2.8
12-35/2.8

__________________
Comments and criticism welcome! It's how we get better!

White G3:P20/1.7:P45-200:PL45/2.8:P8FE:P12-35/2.8

Pictures here: http://troyandmollyalloverthemap.shutterfly.com/

http://500px.com/TroyGorrell

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~tc~ I agree. Other than these two, it's REALLY REALLY hard to go too far wrong with m43 lenses. The standouts are, IMHO: 8/3.5 (fisheye) 12/2.0 20/1.7 25/1.4 45/1.8 45/2.8 12-35/2.8

No 7-14 f4...?

Pay no attention to this suggestion. The 17/2.8 is a fine lens.

__________________
E-M5 -- E-PL1 -- PL-25 -- m.12-50 -- m.17 -- m.45 f/1.8 -- m.14-42 (non-MSC) -- m.40-150

"...the various f/0.95 lenses are not worth the money."
Hmmm, there's that word again... I suppose that that phrase can be used as well.

I have the CS 25mm, f/0.95. The CS 17.5mm, f/0.95 should arrive sometime next week in time for a video shoot in Las Vegas that I have been contracted to do later this month.

I've been working with the 25mm since November 2011. I have used it for both stills portraits such as headshots, video portraits, and industrial "shorts." The acquisition was high at $900 (used). Two shoots paid for it then, I wrote it off as a business expense.

I will use the 17.5mm along with the 25mm in Vegas. Another headshot session will pay for the 17.5 then it will also be a 2012 write-off.

I also used the Oly 45mm, f/1.8 nicely for the headshots; however, the 25mm was better for video. Same for the 17.5mm.

Worth the money to acquire the f/0.95? I needed and continue to need the low-light gathering capability of that aperture.

I don't worry about sheer purchase amount. It is the acquisition cost versus the opportunity lost to generate the revenue that I evaluate. If I am contracted to do a shoot that requires minimally distracting the subjects (meaning no video lights or big cameras), then having lenses with great big honking apertures to use with my tiny GH2 vice a Canon 5D or one of those even bigger dedicated videocams is my answer.

For those having much less stringent or frequent requirements than mine, particularly when there is no revenue to offset the cost, then perhaps it is not "worth it" for them.