Downsizing the right way?

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
Hello all....been awhile since I have been on here....enjoying life and all. Did some purchasing awhile back, and looking at a trip to Spain and Portugal as well as Alaska (fingers crossed on all of it!). Here is the dilemma..or is it and I am making something bigger than it needs to be?

I have an Olympus OMD EM1 ii which I really really like. The issue is my lens situation (all Olympus): 1. Pro 12-100 f/4, Pro 7-14 f/2.8, 25 f/1.8 and 17 f/1.8. Here is my thinking and if it is not the best...well, that is why I am on here!

First...love all the lenses - probably need to use the primes more! But....considering my usage and all, and with the new 12-200 (more reach) out as well as the 9-18 (lighter and maybe a good smaller walk around?), would I be better served with the longer reach and the lighter wide angle even with them both being slower lenses?

You probably think I am an idiot...and I beat you there! However, I am trying to keep things at the most efficient without losing too too much quality.

Thanks,
Rich
 

robcee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
567
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Real Name
Rob Campbell
You’re not an idiot. You’re trying to optimize your lens collection.

I haven’t used the 12-100 or the new 12-200mm lenses. My bet is that the 12-100 is the superior lens with its “pro” designation. That said, I know some professional photographers who use super-zooms for landscapes and paid work that I found surprising.

does the 12-200 have the same Dual IS system as the 12-100?

I hear nice things about the 9-18mm wide angle, but that extra 2mm on the wide end can make for some amazing shots. I find I end up around 8-10mm on that lens a lot of the time anyway though so, it might not be giving up too much? Also, the easy filter use on the 9-18 makes for a nice feature. In any case, they’re probably both excellent, though the 7-14 will be slightly faster for lower light use. If you like shooting in low light or sunsets, it might come in handy.

Keep the primes. They don’t have great resale and they’re handy to have if you want to do some night shots or candids.

Enjoy the trip!
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
Thanks for the input! You are helping me clarify a bit....

I believe the 200 does not have the dual is.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,893
Location
New England
Not owning the 12-200 so this is all hearsay, but the things I have read and the few samples I have viewed have not been all that great, especially on the long end. So you might actually get better image quality cropping a 100mm shot from the 12-100 PRO than you would with the 12-200 at 200. I know back in the old 4/3rds days this was often said when comparing the Oly 50-200mm to the Oly (whispers "Sigma") 70-300, at least for the long end.

I personally don't see an issue with your lenses as I don't think you have much over lap. 7-100 in your two zooms and then for low light, indoor, or the need to be lightweight, your 25/1.8 and 17/1.8 cover the traditional "nifty-50" and 35mm "event" focal lengths with faster apertures.
 

WaltP

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
1,357
Location
Colorado, USA, Terra, Sol, W. Milky Way
No, I think your current lenses are a fine set and you really can't improve much, if at all, from a quality standpoint. I suggest looking for other areas to have fun. You have a very efficient, high-quality, lens set. Maybe something like personal challenges ("today, only the 25." Or "photographs of 1 through 9" or look at the 52 Week in 2019 thread and use those assignments to force new seeing).

Non gear stuff. Your gear is already great.
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
No, I think your current lenses are a fine set and you really can't improve much, if at all, from a quality standpoint. I suggest looking for other areas to have fun. You have a very efficient, high-quality, lens set. Maybe something like personal challenges ("today, only the 25." Or "photographs of 1 through 9" or look at the 52 Week in 2019 thread and use those assignments to force new seeing).

Non gear stuff. Your gear is already great.
That’s a great point! Thanks!
 

turbodieselvw

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Ottawa
The year the 12-100 came out, I travelled to Nepal/Tibet/Bhutan with only the 7-14 and 12-100 and left my 12-40 and 40-150 at home. I ended up using the 12-100 to take 95-98% of my shots. There were a handful of times I regretted not having the extra reach of my 40-150 pro lens but I made do without it. I even took a couple of 3-4 sec night shots handheld with the 12-100. Unless there is a wildlife component to your trip (you may need a longer lens for Alaska), I think you should be fine with the combo that you currently have. Just go out and enjoy your trip, the food/wine and have a great time.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
726
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
If you want a really nice, high quality "standard" travel lens, I think that the PanLeica 12-60 f2.8-4 is the best bet. No, it doesn't have the reach of the 12-100 that you own, but it is smaller and lighter - only 11 oz (320 g) vs 1.24 lbs (561 g), and faster at its widest aperture.

I think it depends on what you intend to photograph. For example, if you think you might be seeing wildlife, then you'd want more reach. But if not, well, the difference between 60 and 100mm might not matter all that much. And the IQ of the 12-60 is quite high, so it is great to use as your main lens.

If you think you might want something with more reach in case you see wildlife, I think carrying inexpensive, lightweight lenses like say an Oly 40-150 4-5.6 would be the way to go. If you are really serious, you could take an Oly 75-300 4.8-6.7 instead, I guess. I often take along the 40-150 just in case and then never use it. But, for example, when I went to Yellowstone I did carry and use the 75-300 instead. Any lens that is faster (and higher in IQ) is MUCH too heavy for any travel I want to do. When I'm at home, it's a different story.

As far as the 9-18mm lens, I have it and like it, mainly because of its size. I mean, it is sharp enough to make it worthwile for travel, IMHO. I think the Pany 8-18 2.8-4 might be a good alternative with better IQ. It's a lot lighter than the Oly 7-14.

Obviously, it all depends on the weight and how much image quality you can stand to lose. My typical travel kit of the 12-60 and the 9-18 (with the 40-150 or 75-300 sometimes) fits me perfectly (E-M10II camera; soon to be an E-M5III, I think!). As a second body, I carry the Pany GM5 (usually with the 9-18 mounted).

I agree that you should keep the 17mm 1.8.

Hope this helps.
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
Not owning the 12-200 so this is all hearsay, but the things I have read and the few samples I have viewed have not been all that great, especially on the long end. So you might actually get better image quality cropping a 100mm shot from the 12-100 PRO than you would with the 12-200 at 200. I know back in the old 4/3rds days this was often said when comparing the Oly 50-200mm to the Oly (whispers "Sigma") 70-300, at least for the long end.

I personally don't see an issue with your lenses as I don't think you have much over lap. 7-100 in your two zooms and then for low light, indoor, or the need to be lightweight, your 25/1.8 and 17/1.8 cover the traditional "nifty-50" and 35mm "event" focal lengths with faster apertures.
Thanks!
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
Not owning the 12-200 so this is all hearsay, but the things I have read and the few samples I have viewed have not been all that great, especially on the long end. So you might actually get better image quality cropping a 100mm shot from the 12-100 PRO than you would with the 12-200 at 200. I know back in the old 4/3rds days this was often said when comparing the Oly 50-200mm to the Oly (whispers "Sigma") 70-300, at least for the long end.

I personally don't see an issue with your lenses as I don't think you have much over lap. 7-100 in your two zooms and then for low light, indoor, or the need to be lightweight, your 25/1.8 and 17/1.8 cover the traditional "nifty-50" and 35mm "event" focal lengths with faster apertures.
Thank you.
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
If you want a really nice, high quality "standard" travel lens, I think that the PanLeica 12-60 f2.8-4 is the best bet. No, it doesn't have the reach of the 12-100 that you own, but it is smaller and lighter - only 11 oz (320 g) vs 1.24 lbs (561 g), and faster at its widest aperture.

I think it depends on what you intend to photograph. For example, if you think you might be seeing wildlife, then you'd want more reach. But if not, well, the difference between 60 and 100mm might not matter all that much. And the IQ of the 12-60 is quite high, so it is great to use as your main lens.

If you think you might want something with more reach in case you see wildlife, I think carrying inexpensive, lightweight lenses like say an Oly 40-150 4-5.6 would be the way to go. If you are really serious, you could take an Oly 75-300 4.8-6.7 instead, I guess. I often take along the 40-150 just in case and then never use it. But, for example, when I went to Yellowstone I did carry and use the 75-300 instead. Any lens that is faster (and higher in IQ) is MUCH too heavy for any travel I want to do. When I'm at home, it's a different story.

As far as the 9-18mm lens, I have it and like it, mainly because of its size. I mean, it is sharp enough to make it worthwile for travel, IMHO. I think the Pany 8-18 2.8-4 might be a good alternative with better IQ. It's a lot lighter than the Oly 7-14.

Obviously, it all depends on the weight and how much image quality you can stand to lose. My typical travel kit of the 12-60 and the 9-18 (with the 40-150 or 75-300 sometimes) fits me perfectly (E-M10II camera; soon to be an E-M5III, I think!). As a second body, I carry the Pany GM5 (usually with the 9-18 mounted).

I agree that you should keep the 17mm 1.8.

Hope this helps.
It does help...more to consider. Thanks!
 

mumu

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
313
Hello all....been awhile since I have been on here....enjoying life and all. Did some purchasing awhile back, and looking at a trip to Spain and Portugal as well as Alaska (fingers crossed on all of it!). Here is the dilemma..or is it and I am making something bigger than it needs to be?

I have an Olympus OMD EM1 ii which I really really like. The issue is my lens situation (all Olympus): 1. Pro 12-100 f/4, Pro 7-14 f/2.8, 25 f/1.8 and 17 f/1.8. Here is my thinking and if it is not the best...well, that is why I am on here!

First...love all the lenses - probably need to use the primes more! But....considering my usage and all, and with the new 12-200 (more reach) out as well as the 9-18 (lighter and maybe a good smaller walk around?), would I be better served with the longer reach and the lighter wide angle even with them both being slower lenses?

You probably think I am an idiot...and I beat you there! However, I am trying to keep things at the most efficient without losing too too much quality.
I sold my 9-18 because there were situations where the chromatic aberration was way too strong and couldn't be removed. The edges were sometimes soft, too. Also, the longer I had it, the more often I was getting an error msg saying that the lens wasn't fully extended despite it's being fully extended. But I do have photos from it that I do like and I value them a lot. I just didn't feel like the lens's performance was consistent and worried that the internal ribbon cable's days were numbered. I replaced it with the Panasonic 8-18/2.8-4 which is bigger, heavier and more expensive. It's lighter than your 7-14/2.8 but only a little bit smaller.

One lens I strongly considered was the Laowa 7.5/2. It's very small and presumably more reliable than the 9-18 but it seems to get pretty good reviews. On the other hand it's manual focus. So if you're ok with manual focus at that focus length, then maybe give it some consideration?
 

Hendrik

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,360
Location
Wayland MA
Real Name
Hendrik
Much of the answer depends on the type of photography you wish to do. Also, where and when you wish to do it. And how heavy you will allow your pack to be. Will you rent a car, go cruising or spend most of your time on foot? What are the baggage allowances if you're flying? Such considerations will help build your travel kit.

As far as any of this goes, research on Flickr can be your friend. Not only can you scout for locations, you can get ideas about what lenses have been used, i.e., focal lengths, apertures, etc., and to what effect. Also, research the weather conditions you are likely to encounter. Gloomy gray will argue against consumer zooms.

BTW, I have the four lenses you mention having and have traveled with them. I have found the 7-14 Pro the least useful (and the 9-18 before that) -- but that's just me – I guess I just don't see that way. 12mm is seldom too long for my purposes, even in urban environments. I have traveled with longer consumer zooms, as well, but they can be frustrating in poor weather. My current travel lenses typically are the 7-14, 12-40 (or 12-100) and the 40-150 (MC-14 optional) Pros. I also take the 17 1.8 but leave the 25 1.8 behind. My minimum kit would be the 12-40 and 40-150 Pros. My next choice would be whether to add a prime (it's usually the 17 1.8) and/or the MC-14, depending on the destination.
 

Rich Young

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Chicago
Real Name
Rich
Much of the answer depends on the type of photography you wish to do. Also, where and when you wish to do it. And how heavy you will allow your pack to be. Will you rent a car, go cruising or spend most of your time on foot? What are the baggage allowances if you're flying? Such considerations will help build your travel kit.

As far as any of this goes, research on Flickr can be your friend. Not only can you scout for locations, you can get ideas about what lenses have been used, i.e., focal lengths, apertures, etc., and to what effect. Also, research the weather conditions you are likely to encounter. Gloomy gray will argue against consumer zooms.

BTW, I have the four lenses you mention having and have traveled with them. I have found the 7-14 Pro the least useful (and the 9-18 before that) -- but that's just me – I guess I just don't see that way. 12mm is seldom too long for my purposes, even in urban environments. I have traveled with longer consumer zooms, as well, but they can be frustrating in poor weather. My current travel lenses typically are the 7-14, 12-40 (or 12-100) and the 40-150 (MC-14 optional) Pros. I also take the 17 1.8 but leave the 25 1.8 behind. My minimum kit would be the 12-40 and 40-150 Pros. My next choice would be whether to add a prime (it's usually the 17 1.8) and/or the MC-14, depending on the destination.
Thanks for your insights!
 

Saledolce

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
879
Location
Italy
I think you have an excellent kit, pro zooms coverage from 7 to 100 and two nimble primes for low light. You could add a 45mm f1.8, that would give you the very popular 17/45 combo with very little added weight and cost.
 

gary0319

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
592
Location
Sarasota FL
All good advice, so far. I’ll just add that the 12-100, will most likely end up being the lens that you use about 95% of the time, regardless of whatever else you choose to carry with it. The 12-100 is so good that even with some severe cropping it will result in a great final image.

Personally, my only other lens I carry for travel with the 12-100 is the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro. With the E-M1 II, you have in camera defishing that gives you about a 5mm rectilinear ultra wide from the 8mm FE. The 8mm is also autofocus and weather sealed..... and tiny. Great for those wide vistas, narrow streets, and also for lowlight museums and cathedrals.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,962
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
These are such personal decisions, there is no “right way.” All lens choices really boil down to trade-offs, and as mentioned before, which trade-offs you choose depend on your photography situations and personal tolerances for price, weight, lens swapping, IQ, performance, etc.

That said, you already have paid for a really good kit that works very well with your camera, delivers high IQ, performance and (for the Pro lenses) versatility and confidence in even harsh conditions. If it were me, I would never downsize from my Pro glass — especially the 12-100. But that’s based on my needs and preferences.
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,963
Location
UK
I sold my 9-18 because there were situations where the chromatic aberration was way too strong and couldn't be removed. ...
The 9-18 has quite a lot of chromatic aberration. But it effectively has NO chromatic aberration when used on more recent Olympus cameras (those introduced since the original E-M1 came out). I sold my E-P5 because it was one of the earlier models that didn't support the automatic correction. It is automatically removed in jpgs by the camera. All the tests I have done show that it works really well.
So... What camera were you using?
(If you take raw, then it's up to you to use post processing that is good enough. But the cameras themselves do it really well.)
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,029
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
The 9-18 has quite a lot of chromatic aberration. But it effectively has NO chromatic aberration when used on more recent Olympus cameras (those introduced since the original E-M1 came out). I sold my E-P5 because it was one of the earlier models that didn't support the automatic correction. It is automatically removed in jpgs by the camera. All the tests I have done show that it works really well.
So... What camera were you using?
(If you take raw, then it's up to you to use post processing that is good enough. But the cameras themselves do it really well.)
I hope it's true what @Growltiger said about the corrections to the 9-18. I expect that Workspace will do it too? It's one of my favorite travel lenses because it's so small and light. Part of my travel kit with the 12-100 and a fast prime like the 15 f1.7. The 12-100, as others have said, is sharp and will pick up 95% or more of the shots. Modest cropping will take care of some longer shots.

As others have said, @Rich Young, you already have a very nice slate of lenses. Your 7-14 is already a great lens, so no need to replace that unless you must have something smaller and lighter, or need to use screw-in filters like the PL 8-18. Maybe your only gap is at the long end, past 100. There are a lot of choices there now, but one really has to think about what you're going after with the longer lenses. I have the ZD 50-200 SWD and the 40-150 Pro, both with teleconverters, but wouldn't take them traveling because they're big and heavy. I have a little 40-150 f4-5.6 R, but am leaving it out of the travel kit because I think the 12-100 would be enough. I tried my friend's 75-300 and it was pretty nice for its size and weight, but is definitely a bright daylight lens. But, it's small enough to put in the travel bag if needed.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom