The Panasonic 14/2.5 and 25/1.7 are very good performers on Olympus bodies ; the 20/1.7 not so much. The Olympus 17/1.8 is fast to AF, wide aperture and beautifully built, but it's softer than most other Olympus primes and is IMO overrated. The opposite is true for the O45/1.8, a vastly underrated blob of ugly plastic that delivers stunningly sharp images.I'm probably not going to be shooting any fast action stuff. I'm thinking more of O17f1.8 vs. say P20f1.7 if I've got those two right. If I'm at the Friday night car show at sunset so I'm taking shots at the fastest aperture, and if the P20 lens, on whichever P camera will focus in 0.x seconds, will it also do that on my O camera or is it going to take 1.x seconds to achieve focus, all else being equal. I've seen several recommendations for various P lenses with an O camera and want to be sure they don't perform less than 100% due to being on a "foreign" body.
I feel like the several posts preceding the quoted one got missed. So let's back up and try a somewhat different approach:I've seen several recommendations for various P lenses with an O camera and want to be sure they don't perform less than 100% due to being on a "foreign" body.
There is also the Panasonic-Leica 10-25 f/1.7. Big, expensive, and heavy like all fast lenses. But, like any zoom, also eventually smaller, lighter, and cheaper when compared to a sufficiently large number of primes.If you are seeking to buy multiple lenses, I would say instead get a used Olympus 12-40mm lens. While the f/1.8 lenses are 1 1/3 stop faster than the 12-40mm, you can do many indoor shots with the 12-40mm.
Olympus were charging a crazy amount for it though. If it was priced like the 17mm f/1.8 it would make more sense.While I don't disagree with the assessment that the 12mm f2 is less sharp than the short end of some of the the zooms, sharpness isn't everything. If you want a small, fast 12mm with decent build quality, it is the only option - I like mine a lot.
Did you buy the 12/2 because you got a good deal? Seems like an odd choice for someone trying to put together a kit with no hard and fast priorities.Oh, I thought they were talking about the 10-25 mentioned a few posts up. I got my 12f2 used for just over $300. It's $800 new on Olympus USA site and on sale there for $650 right now.
+1It really depends on what you want to shoot. You list a scatter shot of possibilities. You have to decide what's important to you. ...
I acquired my 14-150 II lens with an E-M5 II. It's a great combination and a good way to get the lens at a reasonable price. Very sharp in the center and becomes more evenly sharp across the frame as you zoom in past 20mm. It might help to be aware that decentering can be a problem - that is, asymmetrical focusing across the image. It shows up in detailed reviews and is noticeable in some of my photos. Most zooms have some degree of decentering, but you don't want it to be too bad. I've recently started using the Lumix 12-60 instead and find it to be a much better lens at the wide end - but you have to hunt to find a vendor who sells it cheap and accepts returns if it turns out to be a dud.I'm returning the M10-II with a defective EVF sensor and going to get the M5-II with the 14-150 lens. I've got a 12f2 coming from KEH from their 20% off sale. In for a penny, in for a pound, even if I'm not British. So I'm debating what other lenses would complement these two and make a nice collection. My suspect list in no particular order includes:
9-18 zoom for things like the car show etc. when it's going to be a lot of close shots in tight spaces
60 macro for when you want to play really close up with a big image
17f1.8 when you want an all around lens that's also fairly fast
14-42R for lightweight all around and because I've got a high quality Hoya UV and lens hood for it
75-300 because sometimes you want to really reach out
So if you had the two lenses mentioned and PRO lenses are out of the budget and also beyond my shooting level, what lenses would you want next in what order?
Sounds like a great start to me. As you mentioned, the 12f2 will come in handy for those car shows where you often can not back up far enough with less-wide lenses and the 14-42 is pocketable to bring along with an extra battery without requiring a camera bag if you want to travel light.I wound up buying an M10.3 body only because it was about half the cost and will be more camera than my needs or talents require. I've got the 12f2 and 14-42R lenses to use with it and will add to those.
Worth repeating!start looking at the best lens you can afford. The camera body is not nearly as important and over time you may upgrade or buy whatever the newest model is at the time. Bodies come and go, but if you invest in great lenses they will continue to move along with you saving you a lot of money in the long run if you buy the best now instead of 2 or 3 iterations to get to that great lens. I am still using my two high end 4/3rds lenses (I use an E-M1) which I bought over a decade ago, so while they seemed very expensive to me at the time to buy them