Decided not to get the 12-40f2.8 and got the 14-150 II instead.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by DeoreDX, Jan 19, 2016.

  1. DeoreDX

    DeoreDX Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 13, 2013
    I was all set to get another 12-40 2.8. I know it's a glorious lens from previous ownership experience and my new (to me) E-M1 is just itching to have a big lens on put on the front. But knowing from past experience I found I used my 17/1.8 more so than the 12-40 and with the 25/1.7 in the kitchen as well I know I would be buying a lens I'm not going to use very often. Most of my photography is family/people photography I don't really do a lot of landscapes or Macro type stuff. Working indoors with people I always prefer either the 1.8 lenses or to work with a proper bounce flash to control my own lighting. One of the main reasons I wanted to go away from just the E-P5 as my only camera was that I couldn't use a viewfinder and bounce flash at the same time. One of my favorite parts of my a6000 setup was the cheap little bounce flash more so than the sensor, lens, or body. I've also found I missed having the mild telephoto of my old 24-120 on a DX body as I tend to spend more time in the 50-100mm range (on a DX Body) taking people pictures.

    With the recent low $399 price of the Olympus 14-150 II I've decided to go another way and pick it up on the cheap and get a proper tilt swivel flash instead of a 12-40. With a good bounce flash my keeper rate is much greater than just trying to rely on ambient light alone. The 14-150II give mes weather sealing and telephoto reach. Bounce flash will give me good exposure and lighting control indoors. 17/1.8 and 25/1.8 will give me low light options.

    With a good flash unit I can capture moments like these:

    D5000 24-120VR w/ SB600. With the kid and the dog moving so much there would have been no way to freeze this moment in time with just a 1.8 lens and get everything properly exposed, especially not with a well lit Christmas tree in the background and the room lighting coming from slightly behind the subjects.

    a6000 w/ SEL16-70 F/4 with HVL-f20m. Even with crazy multi colored and poor lighting I was able to get a good exposure.

    a6000 w/ SEL16-70 F/4 and HVL-f20m. Bounced flash to fill in the faces as the light through the windows behind the kids was extremely bright and the only source of room lighting and without the flash the kid's faces would have been under exposed we me having to bring their faces up in post or the background would have been over exposed.
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    The funny thing is that with proper use of flash you can make a Coke bottle look good as a lens.
    Lighting is sooo important and the best lens can't make a scene look good if the light is not right.
    The other thing with flash is that you can stop down the lens which brings up the image quality of the so-so lenses to be pretty close to the top glass.
    This pretty much only leaves the shallow DOF of the big guns. Or said another way you have to pay attention to what's behind your subject.
    Of course do as I say, not as I do as I'm a sucker for the premium lenses...:blush:
  3. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    Real Name:
    call me Arg
    Good choice either way. I had the same decision to make and went the other way. I have however bought the P14-140 II for my wife, and she uses it like a hammer drill and is very happy. I certainly appreciate the strengths of these all-in-one's.
  4. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Great photos, and really subtle use of flash. I'm very impressed.

    The expression on the dog's face is hilarious...
  5. runner girl

    runner girl Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 26, 2011
    I have both lenses and find that I use the 14-150 II a lot, mostly as my travel and walking around lens. I still like the 12-40, however.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk