Have 12-40mm... should I get 12mm F2?

kunid

New to Mu-43
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
2
I have recently bought a E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8, 60mm f/2.8 Macro and 75mm f/1.8.

I'm wondering whether I should add a 12mm f/2.0 ahead of a trip I'm going on next month to Chile... I'm expecting to take a lot of landscapes and would like to do some astrophotography... do you think that the 12-40mm f/2.8 @ 12mm f/2.8 will be ok?

There doesn't appear to be many wide fast options. :(

The Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 looks interesting but not available yet.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,149
Location
USA
Real Name
Chris
I don't think you typically need f2 over f2.8 for landscapes or astrophotography. The zoom should be all you need unless you know you will need a little more light. I would think shooting the landscapes at f4 or f5.6 may be more ideal.
 

silver92b

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,031
Location
Atlanta, GA
Landscapes should not need fast lenses. There is almost always plenty of light for landscape photography and if not, there is always the tripod option. I would get a wide angle lens like the Zuiko 9-18mm or similar. The 12-40 f2.8 is insignificantly slower than the 12mmf2 for landscape shots. I would be more concerned about the wider field of view.
 

LowTEC

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
186
Location
Hong Kong / Raincouver
I personally have never shot any landscape@ 2.8 let alone f2. I mostly use 5.6 and up to f13 for long exposure effect. The only time I can think if that one can benefit f2 is shooting stars in pitch black
 

kunid

New to Mu-43
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
2
Thanks for the feedback. The main reason I was even considering the 12mm primes was for astrophotography (I can't bring myself to shell out £400 for a sky tracker)

I have a travel tripod (Manfrotto Befree).

Looking at ultra-wide zooms- Oly M.Zuiko 9-18mm (£415 new) and the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 (£600 new).

The Pansonic looks interesting, although I have read there are some strange purple flares with Oly OMD bodies - should I avoid it?
 

xdayv

Color Blind
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,490
Location
Tacloban City, Philippines
Real Name
Dave
F/2 max aperture might benefit from astrophotography... but having said that, I think the 12mm F2 shines most for street photography at lowlight / night.

If I have 12-40, I might add the 7-14 for landscapes. YMMV.
 

xdayv

Color Blind
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,490
Location
Tacloban City, Philippines
Real Name
Dave
F/2 max aperture might benefit from astrophotography... but having said that, I think the 12mm F2 shines most for street photography at lowlight / night.

If I have 12-40, I might add the 7-14 for landscapes. YMMV.
 

nardoleo

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
348
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Leo
For landscape photography, the 12-40mm is more than enough. I dont think you will need the extra speed from the 12mm f2.

I personally used the 12mm prime when I want a smaller setup or foresee that I wil be doing mostly night or indoor shoot. Thats when the f2 comes in really handy. The prime is really sharp wide open and renders really nicely.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Mu-43 mobile app
 

mcasan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,666
Location
Atlanta
Get a good CPL like the B+W Kaesemann MRC for the 12-40 and put a good ballhead and legs under it all.
 
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