Now that I have the camera which lenses? - Page 2

~tc~ · #11 July 11th, 2012, 12:00 AM

The 12-35/2.8 will cover all your bases. Seriously, this is a "bag of primes" zoom, and if you add up the price of the various lenses you have listed, it would be quite a steal.

For your band shots, you might need the extra couple stops the 20 or 25 provide ... Or even the 25/0.95 ... The small size of the 20/1.7 is hard to argue with. I have been pretty vocal in my misunderstanding of the 25/1.4 ... Larger, considerably more expensive, still no OIS, marginally better image quality, faster AF - seems like a tough sell to me.

hkpzee · #12 July 11th, 2012, 12:39 AM

For me, I like the FOV of the 20/1.7 slightly better than the PL25, but since I am trying to catch my running daughter indoor most of the time, AF speed becomes essential, so the PL25 pretty much becomes my lens cap. In your case, the 20/1.7 might offer you a bit more versatility than the PL25. I get "rattlesnake" with the PL25 on my E-M5 sometimes, but if you don't shoot video with it, it shouldn't be a problem.

If filter is a must for your UWA lens, then you can, i) DIY and turn your 7-14 lens cap into a step-up filter ring, as someone has shown in this forum, or ii) go with either the 9-18 or the 12/2.0. The 7-14 is a heck of a lens though. Totally sharp. Ever since I got this lens (couple weeks ago), my 12/2.0 has been staying in the cabinet...

6x6 · #13 July 11th, 2012, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhazeghi

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

Thats so true, only time will tell what YOU need.

"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"
Interesting article on this subject:
*Micro4/3 Holy Trinity: It’s not the size of the boat, it’s the motion in the ocean. « Tyson Robichaud Photo-blography

For my kind of shooting:
12-35
some macro
14/20/45

If I had the OM-D (not yet), the 12-50 probably would be worth keeping, since its weatherproof, too.
Nice review:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/08/olympus12-50/

DHart · #14 July 11th, 2012, 01:18 AM

Can only speak for myself... we're each so different in preferences and what we shoot.

Minimalist 3-lens kit:

7-14 (stunning lens!)
12-35 (stunning lens!)
20/1.7 (awesome, versatile lens!)

This has you exceptionally well covered for everything from 7mm to 35mm... including a very small fast prime for low light, street, compact, etc.

And, since you want to capture birds, add something long.

Alternatively, if you prefer primes (and can forego UWA-which I can't):

12/2
20 or 25
45/1.8

and something long for the birds.

If and when you've got the scratch... get all of these lenses (and perhaps a couple more) so you can tailor your day kit for whatever you anticipate needing for the photographic objective at hand.

chrism_scotland · #15 July 11th, 2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~tc~

The 12-35/2.8 will cover all your bases. Seriously, this is a "bag of primes" zoom, and if you add up the price of the various lenses you have listed, it would be quite a steal.

For your band shots, you might need the extra couple stops the 20 or 25 provide ... Or even the 25/0.95 ... The small size of the 20/1.7 is hard to argue with. I have been pretty vocal in my misunderstanding of the 25/1.4 ... Larger, considerably more expensive, still no OIS, marginally better image quality, faster AF - seems like a tough sell to me.

I have to say I am quite tempted by the 12-35 especially as it covers off a large scale of focal lengths, although pricey it could replace a 12mm and 25mm which would be about the same price anyway!

While the speed difference between the 12 f2 isn't much I'm not sure I'd want to give up the f1.4 of the 25mm.

gardengirl13 · #16 July 11th, 2012, 09:20 AM

Not sure if the 12-35 interests me. 2.8 isn't fast enough for some of the things I shoot. Plus I'm finding the 50 too short sometimes, I think 35 would drive me nuts. I wish the 12-50 was 12-75 and be the same exact lens it is.

For my shooting I know what I want. I've been shooting for 30 years. I just don't know enough about these M43 lenses. I know I want an UWA, I know I want 2 maybe 3 primes for my lower light stuff. I'm more so wondering the quirks and good parts of each lens.

With the band, I'll be using the (most likely) 7-14 and a normal prime. I will shoot in very dark spots that will require quite high ISO and fast primes. I have shot at ISO6400 at f/1/4 and got shutter speeds of 1/4 at the fastest. So yes I need fast and something that won't band. Right now with the kit I've shot up to 8000 and been ok for web. But I will shoot video so the rattlesnake may be an issue at the stops of songs (they're a loud band so I will only hear it when they're quieter.)

I'm not really asking about the FL, more so the banding issue vs the rattlesnake issue. Worse comes to worse I can use the 7-14 for the video if the rattlesnake is present. But I can't just not shoot with the 20 due to banding. But....and here's the kicker.... with my health I've been going to less and less gigs (very sadly as I LOVE going) so this may not be as important. But for those I do go to I want to get good shots as they use my photos for promotions and such.

As for the 7-14 I'm just wondering about details in the sharpness on things like grass and leaves. I shoot waterfalls a lot and I'll need good ND filters. I'll have to see how to do that lens cap filter thing.

Still not sure if I'll go with something wider then the 20 though. I really shoot most of my prime stuff with my 28 recently. Longer would be nice though since I like subject isolation. I said I wouldn't get the 75mm since I don't use that FL, but now I'm wondering if it'd be better then the 45. When going on walks it might be nice to do the 12-50 and something longer. But then again would the 100-300 be ok? While walking we do see a lot of things that I shoot with the 55-250, that's on the 60D until I see something I want to shoot wider. It's kind of my I need to get that heron in tree over there quickly before she flies away. But with the OMD I'm not sure I can shoot like that any more. Would the 75 be enough and just deal with not shooting birds as much.

DHart · #17 July 11th, 2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrism_scotland

I have to say I am quite tempted by the 12-35 especially as it covers off a large scale of focal lengths, although pricey it could replace a 12mm and 25mm which would be about the same price anyway!

While the speed difference between the 12 f2 isn't much I'm not sure I'd want to give up the f1.4 of the 25mm.

The 12-35/2.8 is a stellar lens and is likely to be my most used lens (along with the 7-14). But I still find good reason to hang on to my 25/1.4, for really low light and thin DOF... it provides a look of its own that I like. I can see the 12-35 as a replacement for the 12/2. Though there are times (when able to shoot leisurely and there are no issues caused by making numerous lens changes) when I enjoy just a "kit o' primes" instead of zooms, and the 12,20,45 make a nice trio.

It's a bit extravagant, but having a kit of high quality zooms (7-14, 12-35, 35-100) and a kit of great primes (12, 20, 45) allows one to tailor just the right kit for the particular shooting needs of the day.

Ned · #18 July 11th, 2012, 10:50 AM

Personally, with the lenses out now a preferred 3-lens prime kit for me would look more like....

m.Zuiko 12mm f/2, Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux, m.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8

That's the perfect spread for my needs within that range (I still need longer telephotos for other things, of course). The 45mm filled the gap when there was nothing longer, but the 25mm to 75mm spread is more useful to me.

I would also go for the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95, but I wouldn't be interested in a 20mm lens if I forgo the 45mm. That's a little too wide.

Sanpaku · #19 August 1st, 2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dre_tech

If you need filters << for the Panasonic 7-14 >> I'd recommend you go with a replacement lens cap adapted to hold a Cokin P with 72mm ring.

This caught my attention. Is this commercially available? All I see on BH are threaded filter step up rings.

Or is this a home brew solution?

strang · #20 August 1st, 2012, 09:20 PM

I'm much more interested in the 35-100 than the 12-35. Especially if you already have the 12-50.

9-18, 25, 35-100 without OIS weight would be my dream kit. I'd be happy with a constant f/4 telephoto zoom too if it's longer, but that doesn't exist.

9-18 is a nicer option for filters. It's also more compact.

There's a pretty big gap between 25 and 100. I think you'll need something to bridge that gap even if you already plan on having the 45.