OK so I have the 12-50 kit, which even though it's one of the "lesser" lenses I find it quite nice for a kit zoom.

So I plan on getting the 45 1.8, no problems there at all. But for my other lenses I'm not sure what to do.

20 1.7 vs 25 1.4:
-20 is slightly wider, I shoot with a 28 right now which equals 44/45 on FF, so it's right in the middle between 40mm and 50mm. I think I'd prefer it a tad wider
-20 has slower AF
-25 has that rattlesnake noise
-25 can shoot in lower light and I hear the 20 bands in lower light
-price is something I worry about since I'll need other lenses too

7-14 vs 9-18 (am I getting the Fl right on these?)
-7-14 seems sharper, obviously wider but is heavier and can't take a filter
-9-18 seems ok to me, but I want this for detailed landscapes and worry it's too soft, but I need a filter
-lighter is always better for me too, but will take heavier if I'm getting something worth it

100-300
Not sure what to compare it to aside from lenses that don't go near the 300mm This one will have to wait since it's so expensive and I'd use it for birds, which I shoot a lot, but the others are more important for now.

Anyone who has used both in a comparison which did you keep and why? I'd prefer the lighter ones, and the cheaper ones, but its it worth what I'm giving up with the "better" lenses. Of course if I can't sell my canon stuff, none of it matters, so yes budget plays a big part here.

First off, I'm not sure who gave you the impression that the 12-50 is a "lesser" lens, but that simply is not the case. In fact, it's one of the more versatile lenses available, as it covers a very usable focal range and also has macro ability. Sure there are other lenses that are faster and perhaps marginally sharper, but I'm not sure why one would simply dismiss that lens.

As to which of the (roughly) normal focal length lenses to choose, I would suggest you try the P20. It's really a terrific little lens that I think should be a part of just about every kit. The only negative is the slow AF; this has never bothered me. If possible you should borrow a P20 to see if you can live with it's AF performance. If so, I find the 20mm focal length more usable than that of the PL25 and the P20's diminutive size and more approachable price really tip the scales.

I'll let others who have experience with the UWA zooms comment on those.

As to the tele, you're right that the P100-300 is the only native game in town for shooting birds. Another option you might consider is an adapted lens in that long focal length. Obviously that will generally mean a bit more weight, but the P100-300 is no featherweight itself. Also, I'm not sure how you feel about manual focus.

__________________
Sarcasm is my default tone, so please consider that before taking offense to the preceding message.

Criticism (no matter how harsh) is welcomed of ANY and ALL images I post.

... and where. If you're out walking around in good day light that's one thing. The 12/50 can do a lot. Plus get wet.

If you want to shoot indoor action with available light that's another thing. You want the best lens you can get your hands on.

If you are nutty about shooting birds like me you get one of these:

[IMG][/IMG]

I've got some cheap lens that came in kits. They don't get used much unless I'm just taking snaps of family or pets. The lens is more important than the camera.

__________________
EP-3, EM-5, 12/50, 12mm, 17mm, 14/42mm, 40/150, 75/300, Nikon 400mm f/3.5 AIS IF ED, HLD6, FL 600R

There are some good comparison threads here on the 20 versus 25 (both excellent, different strengths, mostly comes down to size). A couple of comments about them on the E-M5:

• PL25 does not rattlesnake on my E-M5. I was able to get it to happen once in video mode P, but haven't heard it since. It *was* constant and annoying on my E-P3, though.
• I do get quite a bit of purple fringing with the PL25 in contrast areas... I tend to keep it stopped down to at least f2.8 during the day, which eliminates the issue.
• With the IBIS and the f1.7, there is a good chance that you will not need to go over ISO 1600 much at all, where I understand the banding to begin. I have not seen an issue yet.
• The 20/1.7 AF speed does seem slow coming from the newer m4/3 lenses, but it is similar in speed to other mirrorless systems I have used. It is a bit tough to keep up with younger children, for example.
• I would have a hard time parting with either lens... but if I had to choose one, it would have to be the 20/1.7, just because it gives you such a compact carry option mounted on the E-M5 (unless you already had the 14/2.5).

Have you considered the Olympus 12/2 for a wide angle? Obviously, it does not go really ultra-wide, but it is the sharpest at 24mm, gives you the option for faster speed (indoor architecture?), works with 46mm filters, and is compact. The snap focus ring can also come in handy.

__________________
Kyle / E-M5 and E-PM2
Flickr Photostream

I'm really in no position to talk, but I think you'll find this exercise more productive after you've used your existing kit for a bit, and can assess for yourself where it falls short, and in what areas you'd most like to expand.

It's easy to get into the 'a-lens-for-all-situations' mode, but aside from being expensive, most people generally find 2 or 3 areas that interest them, and it's more productive to concentrate one's efforts on the things one is most attracted to.

Personally, I'd go for the 20/1.7 before the 45/1.8, since for indoor shooting I usually want a fairly normal angle of view (indoors with a telephoto, one can't always back up to encompass more).

DH

I have the 7-14 and I've never been disappointed by it.

Having two other zooms that cover from 12mm up, I'm happy I chose the 7-14 over the 9-18. If you need filters I'd recommend you go with a replacement lens cap adapted to hold a Cokin P with 72mm ring. The other option posted on the forum was with a 52mm rubber hood which I recently bought is not quite as snug.

I have the 45/1.8 and the 20/1.7, but since I got the 12-35 I'm not using them as much. The 45 is definitely more useful together with a fast zoom, which I find can replace the 20/25mm. The 25/1.4 isn't as sharp at until f2, therefore I skipped it.

__________________
GX1 - OM-D E-M5 - Lumix G 7-14 | 12-35 | 20 | 35-100 | 45-175 - m.ZD 12-50 | 45 - Samyang 7.5 - 500px

Well I want to shoot mostly with primes so it's like my old film set-up.

I was thinking 12/20(5)/45, or 14/20(5)/45, or even 17/20(5)/45 if I decide to go with an UWA. With film I shot 35/50/85 but my style has changed slightly. I do rely on zooms a bit, but still prefer the look of primes. I shoot my husband's band in dark venues at ISO3200 or even 6400 with the 60D and a 28 1.8, some places I can get to f/5.6, but mostly it's about 2.8-4, real dark and it's wide open. I also use the 10-22 since it's fun to shoot the band with it. For birds I use the 55-250, for my garden stuff right now I'm happy with the 12-50, but that might change to use primes since they're so light I can carry more then one lens, and with how I shoot I don't need to worry about missing a shot (aside from a bug) since flowers don't move. When we walk I like shooting with a shallow DOV to get a "mystical" look to forests and whatnot, so that's why I want the 45. No kids so no need to worry about shooting fast.

Use your Credit Card.. buy them all and try them out .. before the return policy expires, send the ones you don't like back.. keep the ones you like.. simple..

__________________
It's all good - I didn't do it - no one saw me do it!
Doug - Boise, Idaho USA

Shoot with the kit lens.... after a while you'll identify the limits and know where you want to take your photography next. Buy accordingly.

Photography should drive your purchases not the other way around....


PS> Using your credit card is not good advice. This hobby is expensive, G.A.S sets in, and credit card use isn't the habit you want to throw into the mix.

I just bought the PL 25/1.4 last week . The "rattlesnake" is no big deal for me, it's not loud at all.