1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

12-40 vs 60 macro and 17 1.8/25 1.4

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Superstriker#8, Dec 15, 2013.

  1. Superstriker#8

    Superstriker#8 Mu-43 Regular

    194
    Jun 24, 2013
    Which would be better for general use and occasional macro, I wouldn't have much use for the 1:1 of the 60 but the longer focal length would be nice, and the 1.4 or 1.8 would be nice, but the 12-40 would be extremely convenient, although I have a Panasonic so no stabilization.
     
  2. broody

    broody Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Sep 8, 2013
    The 60mm is for a dedicated Macro shooter, as it takes crazy close working distance and a tripod and/or ring flash to make the most of it. (Not that it's not crazy sharp in general use).

    The 12-40mm is quite bulky. That's its main disadvantage vs. the primes. Then, you trade 1-2 stops of max. aperture for the convenience of an extremely versatile zoom range. You decide - on an unstabilized Panasonic body, it won't be able to keep up if you shoot in challenging lighting conditions frequently. But if you tend to shoot in decent light, it might be the best choice.

    EDIT: Personally, I held off purchasing the 17mm or 25mm right now as there are two similar lenses coming up soon next year - the 15mm Summilux and a (rumored) 25mm Oly pancake. This might not matter to you, as you may be able to buy one, enjoy it for a few months and sell it to fund a new one down the road if it turns out either of these new lenses is significantly better in some way than the older models. But it matters to me, as I won't be able to sell these easily where I live. Just one thing to consider.