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

Choice of two fixes for all occasions

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Braza, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    If you had a choice of two fixed lenses to buy for the OM-D, which would you choose?

    Portraits, street photography, walking with my camera :), traveling and so on.

    Now I have two lenses: Panny 25 1.4 and 14 2.5. The 25 I like its f/1.4, but do not like the angle and size along with weight. But 14 is just not like it because it is too small and not very wide enough too. :)

    So I thought, why not replace them with 12 2.0 and 45 1.8, for example? The cost will be about the same, and the total weight will be too about the same, I think. :)

    Or 17 1.8 and 45 1.8? But 17 can be sufficiently wide for landscapes and walk through the narrow streets of the old part of any european city. :)

    So, what would you choose?

    P.S. Please do not advise me some zooms, I do not like them... The fast aperture is more important to me.
     
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I would choose P14 and O45. If P14 is not wide enough, I would choose O12 and O45.
     
  3. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    Braza, welcome to the forum.
    Your choice is a good one the 12 and 45 are very good and fast lenses.
    You might also consider the O60 macro if you need a short tele instead of the 45.
     
  4. erb3742

    erb3742 Mu-43 Regular

    56
    Oct 3, 2012
    Southern California
    Eric
    I would choice the O12 and PL25.

    Took the majority of my pictures when I went to Europe with the O12, it was great indoors and out at all times of the day. Of recent the PL25 is my favorite lens, especially for candid shots of the family indoors.
     
  5. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    I like the 25 1.4 its capabilities, but for portraits it is not long enough and the DoF is not shallow, I think. Therefore, 45 is more interesting.

    But there is a problem that a set of 12 and 45 I lose such a thing as a "standard" lens. And none of them are in fact not be "full-time" lens. :(
     
  6. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I have used all of the lenses in your post. I've been really happy with the 17 1.8 and 45 1.8 as a kit. I don't know if I miss having the 25 1.4 at all times yet, time will tell.

    A lot of people like the 35mm and 85 or 90mm equivalent kits: In praise of the smallest M travel kit » Yanidel Street Photography
     
  7. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    269
    Jun 29, 2012
    Fixed lens means a lens that is not removable. So for instance both the Sony RX100 and the Sony RX1 have fixed lenses even though one is a zoom lens, while no PEN's have fixed lenses. I think you mean to say "fixed focal length lens", or more simply, "prime lens". That being said....

    On a daily basis I carry the 17 f/1.8 and 45 f/1.8 for good reason. 17 is probably the best just general shooting focal length there is and the 45 works well when I need to get a bit "closer" to my subject, and for portraits.
     
  8. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    Thank's for a link! It's very useful!

    I have come to the same conclusion myself, by analyzing the focal length that I really fit. But I still think that 35mm is a "standard" rather than a wide lens, and it really can not be enough for landscapes and other things.

    And 17 1.8 is a new lens. It got only few tests and reviews. And those that are not very good, unfortunately.
     
  9. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    Oops, sorry! Of course I mean the fixed focal lengths lenses. I'm not English. :) Russian. :)
     
  10. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I'm guessing you're speaking about the Lenstip review? Because everyone else reviews it just fine.

    Sure 17 1.8 isn't as sharp as the other M.Zuikos, it doesn't mean it isn't sharp enough. The other M.Zuikos are too sharp for Olympus' their own good.
     
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I think for a mix of street/landscape and portraits, I would go for the 17mm/1.8 and 75mm/1.8, or else the 20mm/1.7 and 75mm/1.8.

    45mm, in my opinion, is too short for portraits unless you stick with only body and torso shots. If you do a headshot at 45mm you will still get distortion. A close-crop headshot will of course be worse. You're better off to do your portraits at a longer focal length then backing off when you need to include more. A small studio might make full-body difficult at 75mm, but if you're asking about shooting with only 2 lenses then I don't imagine you're shooting out of a studio.

    Shooting portraits with the m.Zuiko 75mm/1.8 is like shooting them with a 135mm/2.8 on film. That was a very good lens format for many portraits (and still is for some).

    Just so you know, I run a commercial and portrait studio so portraits are a big part of my job.

    The 17mm or 20mm should be a good compromise focal length to cover your street photography with sufficient width but not going too wide. Street photography is not my field, though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I agree with Ned, 45 is a bit short for head shots.

    Portraiture in 35mm, generally have followed:

    35mm group
    50mm person
    85mm torso
    135mm head

    It's all about the perspective.

    Though for most occasions, you'll be fine.
     
  13. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    I understand that 75mm would come more up for portraits. But it also costs twice as much 45mm. This is not a small difference. And I don't want to spend a lot of money on the optics.

    Another reason why I want to have just two fixes and both small and light, is to always be able to carry them. Otherwise, the meaning of system micro43 will be lost. By then it is easier to buy a DSLR and several fixes...
     
  14. Jen726

    Jen726 Mu-43 Rookie

    23
    Sep 18, 2012
    California
    Jen
    I agree that the PanLeica 25mm has to be in the mix. It has taken over as my go to lens. I find myself moving forward or back as needed just so I can continue using this lens. It's hard to describe- it's not just the speed and the low-light capability... something about how the images turn out. They're just more beautiful. Must be the Leica influence.

    If cost were not an issue, I'd say 75mm as the second. Also very sharp and fast. It's heavier but it feels like quality.

    From the beginning, I was told 25/75... but the initial sticker shock made me play around with combinations. I started with the 14/20/45 for weight/size/portability, but then just liked the 25mm so much that I traded the others in for the 75mm... and I have never had a day where I regret the extra weight. In fact, it pains me if I'm trying to pack light and have to leave the 25/75 at home. I just feel like I'm compromising... short of it is... size and cost matter, but at least for me I found that the quality of the image was enough to make me shell out the money and carry the weight... Maybe try out the 75mm via rental before deciding against it. Would have saved myself a lot of buy/sell hassle had I just done that in the first place!
     
  15. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    I would go with the P20 and O45. I actually like the O45 for headshots and it's more versatile if you are in limited space. P20 isn't ideal, I would prefer a 17 but the size of the lens is great and the reviews on the 17 f/1.8 are not great.
     
  16. kelly200269

    kelly200269 Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jan 25, 2013
    Leyland, Lancashire
    Martin Kelly
    I would agree completely. I've been using m43 for only a short time now, but have been mightily impressed with both these lenses.

    I also own the P25, which I love for its light-capturing ability, but the P20 is almost as fast, and a damn-sight lighter/smaller. And the 40mm (35mm equivalent) focal length isn't too far from the P25's 'standard' image, and the images are almost as pleasing.

    With the P20 and the O45, I think you have the best compromise, if you intend to use just two primes.
     
  17. Salc64

    Salc64 Mu-43 Regular

    40
    Aug 24, 2012
    New York. USA
    Sal
    You might be better off with 3 lenses. Swap the 14 for the 12. And pick up either the 45 or the 75. Only you can decide wich focal length fits you better
     
  18. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    In that case, why not cheap out with one of the more inexpensive wide angle options (like maybe the Lumix 14mm f/2.5) and a legacy 50mm f/1.4 lens, in order to add the cost of the 75mm f/1.8?

    I think one reason the 45mm f/1.8 is so much cheaper is that it has so many great 50mm lenses of old it needs to compete with. It certainly is a fabulous lens and beats out most of the old 50mm's, but also at a much higher cost. If you aren't reliant on Autofocus, then you can save a lot of money there and still have a great choice of stellar performing lenses.
     
  19. marlon671

    marlon671 Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Dec 10, 2012

    agree! except i love my panny 14mm but next up for me is the oly 45...
     
  20. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    If you already have the 14 2.5 and find it not wide enough, I don't know why you'd consider going to the 17. The only wider prime I know of that isn't a fisheye is the 12. So, 12 and 45 it sounds like.