1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Em10 mkii lens kit

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Dscot60, Jun 26, 2016.

  1. Dscot60

    Dscot60 New to Mu-43

    1
    Jun 26, 2016
    i have recently purchased an Olympus omd em10 ii and am looking to starting to build myself a lens kit but I have found myself at a crossroad.

    Part of me is leaning to wards the zoom kits of oly 12-40 2.8 & 40-150 2.8 or the Panasonic counter parts 12-35 2.8 & 35-100 2.8. where I am located I can get the 2 panny lenses for roughly 1000-1200 used & the oly lenses roughly 1600-1800 used.

    The other part or me is saying get the panny/oly 14-140/150 lens for the versertility and get my hands on a couple of faster primes eg panny 20 1.7 & 45 1.8. The logic behind this option is I believe I would more then likely use the zoom with longer focal lengths outdoors with more natural light available minimising the need for the faster aperture, whilst having the primes for the lower light situation and indoors.

    I enjoy to photograph a wide range of things but more so into pet/animal photography, land/seascape & portraiture/family photos.

    i have decided no matter what way I decide to go I will definitely be working towards getting the oly 60 2.8 macro and the panny 100-300 zoom. I have been reading up on reviews on the lenses stated above but am having trouble making that final decision, I was hoping to get some real world advice from people that have these lens setups or were deciding on similar setups and how you made you decision and if have regret from going one path instead of the other.

    thanks in advance
     
  2. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    148
    Apr 20, 2016
    The PRO lens are better in low light for sure, but I would never trade my 14-140mm for outdoors for 12-35 & 35-100. The flexibility it offers is way too good. You have good light outdoor anyway so that 14-140mm will handle it well.

    There are situation where changing lens is just not possible and you might miss a shot. Plus the extra focal length is very handy.

    For indoors and low light I got 25 & 42.5mm f1.7 and I don't feel a need for a different lens.

    There are quite *rare times* where I wish I also had the 35-100mm when I'm at home sitting on the couch and want to take some photos of my daughter and I'm lazy to move. On this occasion the 14-140mm won't help much because it's almost unusable indoors.

    Sent from my SM-G935F
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2016
  3. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    268
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I was fairly happy with my EM10 plus the 14-42 kit lens, but decided to splurge on the Panasonic 12-35 (which I got used in excellent condition). I am VERY glad I did. The 12mm focal length gives you an extra width that proves to be very useful on many occasions (especially good for traveling), and the lens is much sharper than the kit lens. So I would go for that.

    As far as "super-zoom" lenses like the 14-140 or 14-150, I don't like them because of the compromised image quality.
     
  4. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    148
    Apr 20, 2016
    By no means the lens has poor image quality. I get excellent results from it.

    uploadfromtaptalk1466951461299. uploadfromtaptalk1466951474452. uploadfromtaptalk1466951495540.

    Sent from my SM-G935F
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Well given to the prices you're looking at you could get the all 3 Panasonic (12-35 + 35-100 + 14-140) for the price of the Olympus set (12-40 + 40-150).

    For me I would go the Panasonic route. It gives you two setups, indoor / family / portraits or outdoor / convenient /general. But if I did sports or other action stuff I might lean toward the Olympus side. with the ability to have higher shutters speeds at the telephoto end.
     
  6. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    148
    Apr 20, 2016
    I agree that optimally getting all three would be best if you have the budget. But if I had to choose only 1 lens out of three it would be the 14-140mm.

    Sent from my SM-G935F
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ionian

    ionian Mu-43 Veteran

    387
    May 20, 2016
    Kent, UK
    Simon
    Looking at what you shoot, how often would you use the 35-100 f2.8? Maybe a better kit for you would be one of the f2.8 standard zooms, then get a slow tele zoom, and get the macro lens straight away. As a three lens set-up, this may be better bang for buck for what you want to shoot.
     
  8. MNm43

    MNm43 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Mar 19, 2014
    I can't/won't suggest what you should get. But I'll tell you what works for me.

    For pet/animal (domestic I presume) I'm generally in the 20 - 45mm range. Any smaller and it starts to be a landscape with a pet in it rather than a pet photograph. I'll use longer FL (100-150) for active portraits - think dogs and frisbees. Note that if we are talking wild animals, 150 is the minimum unless you are at a zoo. Birds are a whole other story . . .

    For land/seascapes I'm almost always on the wide end, 12- 20. While there are many nice shots to be taken by compressing the landscape using a longer FL (100-200), the vast majority of my landscape/city shots are wide.

    Portrait/family photos - indoors I'm usually between 15-25 - and outdoors 25-45. This also depends on whether you are shooting individuals or groups.

    My first m43 foray was a GM1 with the 12-32 which I took on an overseas trip. Occasionally I missed a longer FL, but I missed the wider aperture more - particularly for interiors. The next time we went overseas I took a 14-140. Looking back at those images, probably 90% were below 25mm and the vast majority of those were below 20. Another 5% were around 25-45 and the rest above 135. I've heard people say that you tend to use zooms at one end or the other and my experience certainly suggested that. The point for me was that I really didn't need a zoom - small high quality fast prime together a mid- range FL would really cover most of what I enjoy photographing.

    For simplicity the 12-40 (or 12-35) gives an extra stop (or so) over the superzooms and covers 95% of the FL's I tend to use. Just to be clear, I had no issue with the IQ of the 14-140. But for me, I missed the 12mm on the wide end and wanted something wider and faster for interiors- particularly as I don't often use a tripod.
     
  9. TheMenWhoDrawSheeps

    TheMenWhoDrawSheeps Mu-43 Regular

    152
    Jun 15, 2016
    Wow. Let's put the term Image quality aside since many tend to put personal choice of perspective/emotion/composition on the lenses good side, despite the fact that the lens doesn't offer you none of those.

    Now a lens helps you out with 3 things - sharpness/noise/comfort.
    And if you compare those:

    Sharpness - it's difference between 100 and 1. All pro lenses are on par with primes, some even exceed their quality. Same for microcontrast and color rendering.

    Noise - if you are happy with the sharpness, than the noise shouldn't be your concern.
    Compared to the 12-40 f2.8 the 14-150 is just 1 stop lower and 40-150 f2.8 - 2 stops.
    That means under same circumstances you need to bump your ISO just one stop up from ISO 1600 to 3200, or even 6400. Which is almost negligible.
    I personaly use iso800 max, 1600 in extreme conditions, but there are quite a few folks out there who say ISO 6400 On mft is still usable.

    Comfort, is matter of Personal taste, and if the 14-150 fits you, you won't probably need pro zooms at all. Maybe a prime for specific type of photography, or big prints.

    Addendum, we have quite a bunch Software which deals with noise, but there is no real way to increas the amount of detail which the lens provide.



    Sent from my D5503 using Mu-43 app
     
  10. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    268
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I didn't say "poor." I guess I should have said "compromised image quality vs lenses like the 12-40, 12-35, and 40-150 2.8." Everything is relative.

    Myself, I usually use two bodies in situations where a super-zoom lens might be warranted. For example, my primary camera (E-M10) would have the 12-35, and my secondary camera (GM5) would have perhaps a 40-150 (even the less expensive f4-5.6 Oly one). Or sometimes the secondary would have an Oly 9-18 or a Rokinon fisheye. IMHO, this gives you even more flexibility, better IQ from the 12-35, and is only somewhat less convenient or cumbersome. The GM5 is pretty inexpensive nowadays, compared to the price of some of these lenses being mentioned. Just an idea.