12-40 opinions vs bunch of primes...

Hi!

It is a tricky choice. I had the EM-5 with panasonic 20mm f1,7 and the Olympus 45 mm F1,8 and a Voightländer 17,5 F0,95 ande the macro 60 mm F2,8. Added to that I used to have a Canon 5D MkII with five lenses, among them a 70-300 F4-5,6 L lens that I used for quite a while with an roxxon canon/MFT adapter with manual focus. My plan was to use the nifty little OM-D as a second camera but I ended up selling the Canon instead.
When Olympus shipped EM-1 I bought it and the 12-40 lens. Unfourtenatedly I got a lemon and the 12-40 lens broke in my camerabag. However, after a month at Olympus it was repaired and returned to the shop but the shop offered me a totally new lens as a replacement (kudos to them). Now I use the EM-1 and the 12-40 lens to 80% of all my shooting and it is a wonderful combo, I highly recommend it. Together with Capture One Pro for my RAW-files I get a level of quality that i am really pleased with. I simply can not understand the focus people have on full-sensor gear when you can have this level of quality without braking your back carrying it around.
The truth is I never use the 45 mm anymore. I seldom use the 20mm unless I really need a small camera.
The 12-40 is my primary lens.
The 60 mm macro is my second most used lens.
My Viogtländer 17,5 mm is my third most used lens, I just can not let it be. I´m a sucker for the feel of it when I use it and I always marvel att the color and contrast the lens deliver.

The thing about the 12-40 lens is that it may lack a little in buildquality, it really is not up there with Canon L-lenses in my opinion. However, the picturequality beats ANY zoom I have used to this date and that is why I gave the lens a second chance when the first sample broke. It is an amazing lens!
If you can live with the size/bulk of it I would recommend tthat you get:

1. The EM-1 with the 12-40.
2. The macro 60 mm.

Cheers!

 

Go with th 12-40.

Hi!

It is a tricky choice. I had the EM-5 with panasonic 20mm f1,7 and the Olympus 45 mm F1,8 and a Voightländer 17,5 F0,95 ande the macro 60 mm F2,8. Added to that I used to have a Canon 5D MkII with five lenses, among them a 70-300 F4-5,6 L lens that I used for quite a while with an roxxon canon/MFT adapter with manual focus. My plan was to use the nifty little OM-D as a second camera but I ended up selling the Canon instead.
When Olympus shipped EM-1 I bought it and the 12-40 lens. Unfourtenatedly I got a lemon and the 12-40 lens broke in my camerabag. However, after a month at Olympus it was repaired and returned to the shop but the shop offered me a totally new lens as a replacement (kudos to them). Now I use the EM-1 and the 12-40 lens to 80% of all my shooting and it is a wonderful combo, I highly recommend it. Together with Capture One Pro for my RAW-files I get a level of quality that i am really pleased with. I simply can not understand the focus people have on full-sensor gear when you can have this level of quality without braking your back carrying it around.
The truth is I never use the 45 mm anymore. I seldom use the 20mm unless I really need a small camera.
The 12-40 is my primary lens.
The 60 mm macro is my second most used lens.
My Viogtländer 17,5 mm is my third most used lens, I just can not let it be. I´m a sucker for the feel of it when I use it and I always marvel att the color and contrast the lens deliver.

The thing about the 12-40 lens is that it may lack a little in buildquality, it really is not up there with Canon L-lenses in my opinion. However, the picturequality beats ANY zoom I have used to this date and that is why I gave the lens a second chance when the first sample broke. It is an amazing lens!
If you can live with the size/bulk of it I would recommend tthat you get:

1. The EM-1 with the 12-40.
2. The macro 60 mm.

Cheers!

 

Your 7D and the 100 2.8 gives a focal length of 160mm (7D is a 1.6x crop factor)
If that has been your go to lens for years, then I would recommend the 75 1.8 with the EM1. This will give you 150mm focal length on the M43 system (2x crop factor) and better low light capabilities.....and probably the best image quality out of any of the Olympus M43 lenses from what I've read.

If you only use the 10-22 once in a while on the 7D (that would translate to 16mm to 35mm) and haven't used anything in between that and the 160mm FL, then why spend on the 12-40 pro lens? Seems like a big chunk of change for a lens that will only be used sometimes. The 17 1.8 will be stellar if you don't mind losing a bit on the wide end.

To me, it sounds like the EM-1 and the 75 1.8 would be the best fit for you.....(and possibly the 17 1.8).

Happy hunting.

 

I have the 12-40 and own or have owned most of the primes from Oly and Panasonic. For me, the choice between zoom and prime is all about uncertainty. I frankly never put the zoom on the camera if I know what I'm going to be shooting - I just like the faster primes better. But when I'm traveling or just uncertain, the zoom is hard to beat. It's pretty much all you want on the IQ front, but for the sensor size, it needs to be faster if you want the shallow option.

If I couldn't afford one or the other (read: if the wife figures out how much I've spent), I'd give up the zoom before my 12, 17, 25, and 45. But I'd miss it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

For all of last year, I traveled with EM-5 plus 7.5 / 14 / 25 / 45 packed in TT Retro-5 bag. Neither size nor weight was ever an issue. I probably use 14 the most, followed closely by 25, then some 45 and occasional 7.5. I purchased 12-40mm this year not because it's smaller or lighter but simply because convenient. While results I get with primes rarely disappoint, I however realized switching lens is just not practical in many situation when travelling. These days I often go with (1) primes only or (2) 12-40 + 25. Cant go wrong either way.

 

Personally, I would never be happy with anything knowing something "better" is available for less. Let's define better. Well, it's subjective, but for me, I don't care about weather-sealing too much, zoom is a negative because I like to maneuver my body, and the zooms are heavier, more expensive, and slower than most of the primes. If I'm getting f2.8 bokeh at 25mm and I know f1.8 is available, I wouldn't be happy personally.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, if the "better" product costs a lot more money, everyone in the world makes compromises!

 

Depends on what you shoot. If I'm taking photographs of people or want more DOF control, primes it is. But when I travel - which is where the zoom is used most - I take more environmental shots, landscapes, etc. where I don't need or want less DOF, I often want more. Add the fact the lens is already tack sharp wide open and it's a winner. Add a fast prime to the bag for those subject isolation moments, and you're golden.

 

I was a prime-guy before I got the 12-40, and well... I ain't anymore!

In practice, you don't really lose any IQ vs primes in the same range. Yeah, it's a bit over 1 stop slower, but I don't care too much about that either. I do have a 45 1.8 and a 75 1.8 as well, but I rarely use them nowadays. The E-M1 and 12-40 combo is a splendid, weather sealed package with all the focal lenghts I usually need without having to change lenses and without any practical loss in IQ. Try it!

 

I feel so damn uninspired when I shoot with a zoom. Just not my cup of tea, never has been. This classic tale of zoom vs. primes only has one right answer to it really.... What suits you best. I know its such a cliche answer but the truth is everyone has there own set of needs and style. Both of those variables will dictate what works for you. I have been shooting with a 50mm prime for so long now I could practically never need another lens and be just fine with one fixed focal length. Another reason why I would love to see a fixed FL camera with a 50mm lens on the front instead of the usual 35mm or 28mm. But thats besides the point here. If you absolutely need the convenience/versatility of a zoom then nothing else will simply do. Its as simple as that. Only you know if thats what you require. People always just say oh well its just one stop faster, but sometimes and a lot of times that can mean getting the shot or not. While thats only one positive aspect of a prime among many its one of the more important ones (instead of the usual DOF considerations that are always inevitably brought up).

 

1. the prime is more than 1 stop faster than the pro zoom. not because of 1.8 is wider than 2.0, but because of transmissibility. the actual light-gathering-advantage of the omzd f1.8 is probably more like 2 stops over the 12-40.

2. while the 75mm is optically olympus' best lens, it is for me a pretty specialty FL, that makes it difficulty to use. despite the beautiful build and design, the actual real life value (/cost) is low

i find myself often naturally shooting between 17-25mm on the zoom. for that reason, i chose the 25/1.8 to compliment the zoom. they both get mixed usage during the day. but at night time the prime almost always comes out.

 

Which costs less, takes up less space, weights less, and uses one filter size ?

 

You might consider a Sigma 60 mm lens as a very cheap stop gap solution ($200-$240). They are supposed to be very very sharp. I would hate to be without a longer zoom.

PS Enjoy Thailand!

 

After the purchase of the Oly 12-40mm f/2.8, my P14mm, P20mm, O45mm and O60mm lenses have spent far more time in the lens pouches and not on the camera. Just saying...