"Dream Team" Lens Combo or not?

[SilenX]

I'm faced with a difficult decision as of late. I've been lucky enough to sell some other collectables off and stockpile enough funds to afford the coveted 12-35 & 35-100 "dream team" lens combo and am close to pulling the trigger on them but have recently pondered some different ideas.

Analyzing my shooting it seems I either shoot on the particular wide end (7-14) or the longer end (45-150). Now, that's not to say having the 12-35 I wouldn't use it; I most certainly would use it. And then probably just keep my kit as just the 7-14, 12-35, and 35-100 for simplicity's sake. Odds are keep the 45 at home unless I knew I was going to be doing strict portrait shots.

However, enter option 2, a second fixed lens camera body for a "take anywhere, always on me, grab 'n go quick" camera and get just the 35-100 lens. My first thought was a Fuji X100, with all the recent "fluji" going around I've seen and quite liked how small and compact the X100 is for it's colors and image quality. But, I also have seen the Ricoh GR and Sony RX100 which are also seemingly nice fixed lens camera options as well. While I know the Ricoh GR and Sony RX100 don't have the colors the Fuji does I'm curious if the others even stack up.

Note: I am not looking at the X100S. I believe that for $1,200 it's just not enough camera to justify the expense in my opinion. With the latest firmware already announced and incoming for the X100 the typical grips should be nothing that concern me too much anymore.

Then, I thought of option 3, forget the second camera idea and drop the G5 to pick up a GH3 and the 35-100 lens. I have big hands but don't want the weight - or price - of a full fledged DSLR so m4/3 is my choice; mainly the DSLR oriented bodies.

My typical shooting involves cars, people, sports, landscapes, and pets. I had thought about getting into street shooting but don't think it will happen with a G5 or GH3 which is why the X100/Ricoh GR/RX100 entered my mind.

My question to all of you is which option do you think is best and why? I'm posing this thread to you guys because the answers given always seem to take more into account than I originally did and I appreciate it.

 

[Replytoken]

I have had some similar feelings about upgrading my equipment, but I have decided to hold off for now, and I am feeling better each day about that decision. I have a nice set-up, and it was not really clear tome if I was upgrading to upgrade, or if I was truly solving a problem that needing solving. If you are not really clear about what makes the most sense out of a number of options, then waiting and mulling it over a bit more may be good for you. As I have a limited photo budget, my purchases need to make sense and provide me with some enjoyment. And while I would love a new body or lens, neither is holding me back from making images that I desire. And, with the new Oly f/2.8 lenses on the horizon, I am glad that I did not jump on some expensive lenses that I was considering, but did not "need". Can you give it a bit more time, or will your GAS get the better of you?

--Ken

 

[SilenX]

While the GAS is something that is always at play for anyone, as it's human nature, I don't believe it's something that will compel me to make a purchase in the near future. I'm still in the process of sorting out the decision I'm going to make.

Some further thoughts since I've posted...

Option 1 - Glass is going to remain constant while camera bodies are doomed to become obsolete very quickly. It may be money well spent to invest in glass which will hold its value rather than a camera body that will be "behind its time" sooner rather than later.

Option 2 - "The best camera is the one that's always with you." Is what keeps popping into my mind for this option. While I have a iPhone and the camera on it is very good for what it is, it just isn't the same quality as m4/3 or the Fuji images I've seen.

Option 3 - The need for an upgraded body only lies for video, and even then, the G5 does very well for what it is. This is option has been cut the more I think about it.

So now the main question is this.

Have a camera with me at all times that produces images with quality? Or invest in glass that will complete an all around great kit and keep me traveling light for any circumstance?

 

[Replytoken]

Good thinking. Is the G5 too big to be your everyday camera? If so, then it is not unreasonable to look at other body options. If you like a 28mm FOV, then the Ricoh may be just your ticket. Or you could find an E-PL5 which is only slightly bigger, but it definitely not shirt pocketable.

And while glass does not lose value like bodies, you should consider buying glass that fills a void. I keep thinking about the 75mm as it is an amazing lens, but I really do not shoot at that focal length that often, so is it really the lens for me?

Good luck and keep us posted as you mull this over,

--Ken

 

[khollister]

Depending on your definition of "sports", "people" & "pets", a wide angle fixed lens camera may not be a good fit for you.

The 35-100 (or some sort of tele zoom) is a pretty obvious need for sports and potentially pets. Aside from getting something longer than your 45, I'm not sure there is any particular item that fills any obvious hole.

 

[pdk42]

Here's a few thoughts/ideas...

For many years I shot Canon FF and always wanted a single go-anywhere camera since dragging the Canon about wasn't a practical proposition. I tried two approaches - a high-end P&S (Canon G9); and a fixed lens large sensor mirrorless (X100). The Canon didn't do it IQ wise and the Fuji often left me frustrated because it wasn't wide enough (or sometimes long enough) to do what I wanted (the AF was rubbish too!).

When I changed to u43, one of the great advantages was that I could have a serious camera (E-M5) and a go-anywhere camera (E-PL5) that could take the same lenses. Having learned the lesson that one lens is too limiting, I have a small bag (smaller than a lunch box) that carries the E-PL5, two lenses, a spare battery, flash and a few filters. I can throw this in the car or whatever and I know that I can capture a wide range of opportunities that come my way. The two lenses are generally the 17/1.8 (low light) and the 9-18 (since I like UWA). I'll sometimes swap one of them for the Sammy 7.5 FE or 45/1.8, dependent on what I think I'll be doing or where I'll be going.

Regarding glass and given what you shoot, I'd think the 35-100 would be much more use to you than the 12-35 given that you already have the 7-14, 20 and the 45.

 

[DynaSport]

I really like my G5 and lenses right now, but I decided on a small, fixed lens camera when I don't want to take the G5 along. The G series Canons were bigger than I wanted, and I didn't want to spend the money on the Fuji, so I went with an iPhone.

 

[tol1l1yboy]

The GR will make you leave anything else at home that is anywhere near 28mm. Its so good. Ricoh has the camera of the year at 1/4 the price of an rx1

 

[tol1l1yboy]

Oh and I had the 12-35mm for a while. It was convenient but something was missing in the images. Maybe BC in ff terms it is essentially a 24-70 f/5.6 (I know not entirely accurate) and so its a pretty substandard lens coming from the DSLR world. I personally didn't see anything special from it and therefore sold it. I would much rather use the 7-14mm and 17, 20 or 25mm depending on your favorite focal length.

 

[flash]

Get the 35-100 first. See whether the gap from 14-35 can't be filled with the 20 you already have and make a decision from there.

I also thought the idea of getting a small body and a couple of primes was a good one. Maybe an EPL5 and the sigma 30 with your 20?

Gordon

 

[SilenX]

Thanks for all the great feedback and responses guys, lots of good ideas here.

As far as the 12-35 and 35-100 leaving something to be desired in the IQ arena I'm afraid I'll fall in the camp that feels blown away by it. I've never owned a DSLR and the G5 is my first venture into photography as a hobby.

The point that a smaller m4/3 could be used as a "take anywhere" camera with my 20 is a good idea and I had given it some thought but kept reading that the Fuji had seemingly better quality.

Assuming I went the 35-100 route I guess I could pick up a GX1 for dirt cheap now-a-days or even a EPL-5 - albeit for a bit more - and rock the 20 on that. Heck, if I end up snagging a GX1 cheap enough I can grab the 12-35 as well. Something about not having the 7-100 range fully covered by my kit would bother me - I'm only slightly OCD I promise...

How does the IQ compare from the GX1 to the EPL-5? Does the IQ difference really command the price jump?

Thoughts?

 

[Replytoken]

Olympus is now selling reconditioned E-PL5's for $360 USD, so you could save a few bucks. The IQ difference between the two sensors is not huge, but the Oly probably has a slight advantage for stills.

--Ken

 

[hobbified]

I've used a friend's X100. It's a pleasure to drive, the through-finder with overlay is downright nifty, and the images out of it are great. If the fixed focal length is to your liking, I think you should go for it.

Here's a couple things out of it:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[nardoleo]

I personally love the twin panasonic X zooms combi. Especially for travel. They do make a lean mean combi when paired with my EM5.

If you feel that you are more prone to using the 7-14mm, maybe just get the 35-100mm to pair with it. Those 2 and a fast prime like the Oly 17mm f1.8 would be a lovely "dream team" too.

 

[SilenX]

I personally love the twin panasonic X zooms combi. Especially for travel. They do make a lean mean combi when paired with my EM5.

If you feel that you are more prone to using the 7-14mm, maybe just get the 35-100mm to pair with it. Those 2 and a fast prime like the Oly 17mm f1.8 would be a lovely "dream team" too.

I think I would love the twin panny X zooms as well which is why I'd still like to get the 12-35. I think once I have the zooms they will be invaluable to me when you add in the 7-14 its just such an inclusive kit it doesn't make sense to not get the 12-35 if I'm getting the 35-100.

 

[swampduck]

I really like my G5 and lenses right now, but I decided on a small, fixed lens camera when I don't want to take the G5 along. The G series Canons were bigger than I wanted, and I didn't want to spend the money on the Fuji, so I went with an iPhone.

:biglaugh:

 

[pdk42]

... in ff terms it is essentially a 24-70 f/5.6 (I know not entirely accurate) and so its a pretty substandard lens ...

Whoa - this isn't really a fair comment! The 24-70 f5.6 claim is about DOF equivalence, not light gathering. It's still a f2.8 lens so far as exposure is concerned. Also, slow zooms on FF (e.g. the old Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6) are cheaply made kit zooms manufactured to a budget. You can't seriously compare the 12-35 with something like that. IMHO, the 12-35 is anything but a sub-standard zoom. Read one of the many reviews of the lens to confirm that. It's as good as any of the 24-70 f2.8 offerings from the FF players.

It won't match the narrower DOF of a faster prime, but in sharpness terms it's easily the match of any of the primes I use (with the exception of the 75/1.8, but that's special )

 

[tol1l1yboy]

Whoa - this isn't really a fair comment! The 24-70 f5.6 claim is about DOF equivalence, not light gathering. It's still a f2.8 lens so far as exposure is concerned. Also, slow zooms on FF (e.g. the old Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6) are cheaply made kit zooms manufactured to a budget. You can't seriously compare the 12-35 with something like that. IMHO, the 12-35 is anything but a sub-standard zoom. Read one of the many reviews of the lens to confirm that. It's as good as any of the 24-70 f2.8 offerings from the FF players.

It won't match the narrower DOF of a faster prime, but in sharpness terms it's easily the match of any of the primes I use (with the exception of the 75/1.8, but that's special )

I know and that is why I did make the caveat that not really but I shot with it for a long time. I know what it is capable of doing. It is a nice lens for what it is. But it isnt "much" better than the kit lenses in real world use. Yes it is decent. Yes it is nice to have the zoom but it is hardly worth the premium price (imho). The 35-100 is worth it b/c you get 2.8 at a focal length you cant get elsewhere with the system. I can see the real world uses for that lens because of the range you get. The 12-35 in theory is amazing but from my experience with it not worth it. Go with the 20mm and you can take a step back or forward and cover the range you get. ;-)

 

[arad85]

My camera bag contains:

• Gripped GH3
• 12-35 (on my camera most of the time)
• 35-100 (next most often used)
• 7-14
• GPS receiver
• 58mm CPL

It weighs a little over 2kg and goes everywhere I go when I am out for a day out. The primes (see signature) just sit in another bag being protected from gathering dust.

I am thinking of a Fuji X100S after Christmas as a "slip in the pocket" camera.

I no longer have GAS, but then shallow DoF photography (i.e. faster primes) isn't really my thing....

 

[tol1l1yboy]

I think I would love the twin panny X zooms as well which is why I'd still like to get the 12-35. I think once I have the zooms they will be invaluable to me when you add in the 7-14 its just such an inclusive kit it doesn't make sense to not get the 12-35 if I'm getting the 35-100.

You wont ever use the 12-35 if you have the 7-14 and 35-100. I would HIGHLY recommend that you start with the 35-100 and 7-14 and couple that with one prime either the 17, 20 or 25 and go from there.

I definitely dont ever feel like I miss a shot b/c I dont have the 12-35mm any longer.