Combination for travel and then back home

[MacBook]

I have a Panasonic G85 camera and would like to upgrade my lens collection with either the 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-100 f/2.8 or the 12-60 f/2.8-4 lens. I already have the 12-32mm, and so I could purchase the 35-100 and use it with the 12-32 and the Panasonic 20mm for low light.

My uses are varied. Next month, I will be spending 10 days in Croatia, and doing mostly landscapes, waterfalls, people, and exterior buildings. Normally, I would like a fast sharp lens for indoor events, such as classical concerts, for which the 35-100mm would be very useful.

 

[wimg]

Considering you do people & concerts, the 35-100 is a nobrainer IMO. You could also use it for buildings, as in, architectural details. Short tele is great for slightly compressed landscapes too.

Landscapes, waterfalls, and exterior landscapes I guess you could do with the 12-32, so you could leave it at that rather than add the 12-35, and the nice thing about the 12-32 is its compactness - handy for travel. Having said that, personally I would like to have a much wider lens to be available for these subjects, like a 7-14 mm. I think the Panny 7-14 would be great here, although the Laowa 7.5 may be a good prime option in that case.

IOW, personally I would add the Panny 7-14 F/4 and the Panny 25-100 F/2.8, where I would possibly keep the Laowa 7.5 in mind if you'd prefer a prime for an UWA.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

 

[retiredfromlife]

The 35-100 F2.8 would be a very good edition.
I tend to not like much wider than 12, it I do I just use the Olympus body cap lens.

 

[ac12]

Having been shooting concerts in a theater last night and going again tonight, here are some of my notes:
First, my current theater kit is a Nikon D7200 DX crop camera, so you have to make adjustments for the 1.5x crop vs. a 2x crop on a m43 camera.

• Lenses:
  • I used 2 lenses; 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 and 70-200 f/4. I'm going to bring my 35mm f/1.8 tonight.
    
  • Theater lighting can be painfully low, so a FAST lens will help to keep the ISO level down. f/2.8, or faster if you can afford it.
  • The 18-140 is a painfully slow lens to use in low light. I had to crank up the ISO to 8000-12800 to be able to use it. This is really a daytime lens.
    
  • I used the 70-200 on a monopod, because even with stabilization, it would be hard on my arms to hold the camera+lens up for so long. Granted my DX kit is heavier than your m43.
    
  • To get the full width of the stage, to get the entire orchestra, from the back of the theater, I set my zoom to about 35mm (normal lens).
• Theater lighting can be "challenging" to deal with
  • The lighting is not consistent across the stage. I have about 1-1/2 stops of lighting difference from the central portion of the stage to the sides where the percussion instruments are. This means when I shoot close, I either have to ride the exposure compensation (in aperture priority) or the exposure (in manual). I constantly check my histogram and the highlights display to make sure I have not burnt out any faces.
  • The theater uses colored and white lights, so there is sometimes a color cast on the performers. I deal with this in post, using "remove color cast."
    
  • I have had to switch to full manual, when the stage background was such that the meter could not consistently expose the subjects.

 

[ac12]

I have the Panasonic 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6, as a light GP/travel lens.
It was a balance of size, weight and price.

Personally, I can see an argument for 2 sets of lenses

• PL 12-60 f/2.8-4
• P 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8

Despite the overlap, they do different things.
The 12-60 would be a great 1-lens setup or when you would be shooting in the 20-45mm range, so you don't have to constantly swap lenses, which you would with the 12-35 and 35-100.
The 12-35 and 35-100 are f/2.8 lenses, which are better in lower light. But they are 2 lenses. Though depending on what you are shooting, you may not carry both lenses at the same time.

 

[MacBook]

The 35-100 F2.8 would be a very good edition.
I tend to not like much wider than 12, it I do I just use the Olympus body cap lens.

I am not too much of wide angle person myself, so wider than 12mm is not necessary.

 

[MacBook]

I have the Panasonic 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6, as a light GP/travel lens.
It was a balance of size, weight and price.

Personally, I can see an argument for 2 sets of lenses

• PL 12-60 f/2.8-4
• P 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8

Despite the overlap, they do different things.
The 12-60 would be a great 1-lens setup or when you would be shooting in the 20-45mm range, so you don't have to constantly swap lenses, which you would with the 12-35 and 35-100.
The 12-35 and 35-100 are f/2.8 lenses, which are better in lower light. But they are 2 lenses. Though depending on what you are shooting, you may not carry both lenses at the same time.

Yes, all three would be nice, but even two would be a stretch at this point. I have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that are both fine lenses. If the reach beyond 45mm is not needed, then the Olympus does a very nice job inside, but I find that the extra telephoto range is really useful. It probably argues for the 35-100, since the 60mm is not that much longer than the 45mm. It just makes for more complications in traveling, as the one lens option seems ideal when out and about with people who are not photographing anything.

 

[Gillymaru]

I have the 12-35 2.8 and 35-100 2.8 and although a great pair of lenses I think that if I were to start again with what is now on offer I would get the 12-60mm and the new 50-200mm a pair that replicated what I have in my older 4/3 lenses. I found them wonderful as a travel and sport combo.

 

[ac12]

Yes, all three would be nice, but even two would be a stretch at this point. I have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that are both fine lenses. If the reach beyond 45mm is not needed, then the Olympus does a very nice job inside, but I find that the extra telephoto range is really useful. It probably argues for the 35-100, since the 60mm is not that much longer than the 45mm. It just makes for more complications in traveling, as the one lens option seems ideal when out and about with people who are not photographing anything.

Don't you just hate compromising.
Why can't they make a 10-200 f/2.8 as small and light as the 40-150 f/4.5-6.3 and as cheap.

For me, my compromise lens, the Olympus 12-100 f/4, is neither small, light nor cheap.
It is on my wish list.

 

[MacBook]

Don't you just hate compromising.
Why can't they make a 10-200 f/2.8 as small and light as the 40-150 f/4.5-6.3 and as cheap.

Perfect....almost.....it should be f/2.