Lens Advice-Nocticron or 12-35 and 35-100

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Rhelbling, Oct 2, 2014.

  1. Rhelbling

    Rhelbling Mu-43 Regular

    49
    Mar 18, 2013
    Hello all!

    I am in a position where I can feed my GAS problem. Wanted an opinion from the group of whether they would buy the 42.5 nocticron or the 12-35 and the 35-100.

    Currently I have the 14-42 that came with my G5, the 14-140 and the PL25.

    When I first started shooting I liked the idea of having zoom. But the longer I have been shooting, I find that I shoot almost predominately with the PL25. It just produces such incredible images that I can't take it off.

    Your advice is greatly appreciated !!

    Best,
    RSH
     
  2. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    836
    Sep 30, 2013
    Well, if you like the 25mm, you'll love the 42.5.

    Personally I have the 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2, 12-40/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. While the zooms are very good zooms, and convenient because they are zooms, I prefer the images from the primes and if I know the primes will be suitable for what I am shooting, will always go for the primes first.

    What sort of shooting do you do?

    You could also go for say, one of the zooms and the 45/1.8, which is also an excellent lens.
     
  3. Rhelbling

    Rhelbling Mu-43 Regular

    49
    Mar 18, 2013
    Mostly street shooting and then the obvious family and vacation photos. We are expecting our first child and I think the 42.5 would be great for photos of the baby.
     
  4. biza48

    biza48 Mu-43 Regular

    42
    Jul 31, 2014
    Portugal
    For family and vacation you already all the lenses you need. For baby photos, you already have the PL25. You don't need any more lenses, but it's your money...
     
  5. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    836
    Sep 30, 2013
    The 45/1.8 would be perfect for baby/kids photos, the Nocticron is really overkill for this IMO. One of the big advantages of the 42.5/1.2 over the 45/1.8 is that is gives you more control over DOF at longer distances like full body shots of adults where the 45 struggles to isolate the subject from the background. But for baby photos, where you'll be very close to a tiny person, you will end up stopping down to get enough in focus even with the 45/1.8. The 25, as mentioned above, will likely serve this purpose quite well, only concern I would have with that is perspective distortion from being so close with a lens of that focal length. For that matter the 35-100/2.8 would be a good choice for baby photos as well.

    I think the 35-100 and 12-35 would make good vacation lenses if you don't mind swapping lenses while you're out and about. Both are still relatively small and easy to carry. The 12-35, 35-100 and 25 would make an excellent travel kit IMO. It really depends on how happy with your 14-140 you are, the two 2.8 lenses will unquestionably deliver better image quality, but if the 14-140 is good enough for your uses there probably isn't much point in swapping.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    312
    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I think street shooting 12-35/35-100 would be a better choice?
    42.5mm is a more specialized focal length than the 25mm, I only use it on the job that I think will require better low light/bokeh shot. Most of the time I use 12-35mm and 25mm.
    45mm 1.8 could be a good starter to get, if you like the focal length then you can move up to Nocticron later.
     
  7. BobbyTan

    BobbyTan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Dec 26, 2013
    Long Beach, CA
    I would say get the Nocticron + 12-40 PRO + 40-150 PRO + MC-14. That's what I have or will have.
     
  8. Vesku

    Vesku Mu-43 Regular

    84
    Sep 23, 2014
    Fin
    If you want to shoot video too I warn you about POWER OIS lenses adding unwanted vibration to handheld videos.
     
  9. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    632
    Jan 4, 2014
    I think some people overlook the fact that you have a camera without ibis. Undoubtedly the combination of f1.2 + ois on the nocticron will be very powerful.

    It is expensive though. I managed to get it for approx 1200 and actually paid 1299 for my 35-100, so a different situation. I love both lenses for photography. For video the nocticron has better ois. If you could find a way to get those two, that would be my recommendation.
     
  10. wushumr2

    wushumr2 Mu-43 Regular

    137
    May 20, 2013
    If you shoot predominantly with the 25mm 1.4 then the zooms are pointless. If you're going to plonk down what would end up being at least $1700 on lenses, make sure they fit into your shooting. Also, if you don't mind manual focusing, I'd HIGHLY recommend one of the higher-end C-mount 50mms or a Pen-F 40mm 1.4. I have one and it DEFINITELY has thin DoF, weighs about the same as your 14-42 (which you should probably sell, btw :D) and is shorter in overall length, even with adapter.

    The G5 has an ETC/digital teleconverter, yes? It's not optimal, but using it would make your 25mm the equivalent of a 100mm, yes?
     
  11. Rhelbling

    Rhelbling Mu-43 Regular

    49
    Mar 18, 2013
    Wow, I really appreciate the thoughtful responses, however, it just left me more on the fence about what I should do. I am looking to put together a good kit of lens at this point, then I was planning on upgrading my body. The 14-140 works well on vacation, especially during the day. I have been able to capture some really great images with it. I want to invest in some better glass that will allow me to better manipulate the DoF.

    A little more info on me. For video, I have a GoPro Hero 4 I am picking up on Sunday, and that will serve my purposes in that arena. I have been shooting for 2 years and absolutely love photography. I know equipment isn't going to make me a better photographer, but since getting the PL25, and having that control over DoF, I feel that my creativity has grown and my ability to capture has increased. Sometimes I feel like I am limited by my camera body not having IBIS, which limits the lens I feel comfortable purchasing, so maybe I should upgrade that first, and then I will have more flexibility on lens going forward?
     
  12. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    I don't use my cameras/lenses for video, so I cannot comment on that. I've owned the 20f1.7, 25f1.4 and still have the 17f1.8. In addition to those, I have several legacy lenses including Canon FD 50f1.4 and several Voigtlander lenses.
    At the beginning, I started my M43 journey with the E-M5 and the 12-50 kit lens. I quickly found that slow zoom lenses were quite limiting so I went with the primes I described. The fast primes were excellent for IQ and bokeh and low light focusing. However, they were not too convenient. Changing lenses all the time to suit the needed focal length was a PITA.

    Finally, when the Pro quality fast primes became available, I got the 12-35f2.8 and the 35-100f2.8.. These are much more practical for walking around doing street shooting, etc. No need to change lenses, and no more problems with low light A/F issues... I sold the 12-35 which was a great lens because I wanted to try the Oly 12-40. Now the 12-40 hardly ever leaves the E-M1 body.... It's a great all around lens and the IQ and DOF are fantastic. I'm waiting for the 40-150f2.8 which I will buy, and that should be all I need for 99% of my shooting.

    I still keep the Voigtlander lenses because I need them for my R-D1 camera. I will also keep the old legacy glass because it's not worth the hassle of selling it. But I don't think I'll be going nuts buying expensive prime lenses in the near future. I know it's heresy to say it, but the pro zooms are perfectly good enough and even better than good enough for me.
     
  13. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I would enjoy having the 42.5 as much as anyone would. But, as much as I can appreciate the 42.5, given the exceptionally high pricing (and trying to stay within some kind of reasonable budget) I think the 45/1.8 is close enough in performance to get the job and allocate the remaining funds toward a premium zoom, whether that be the 12-35 or 35-100, or 12-40.

    That said, if the budget allows, and the qualities of the 42.5 appeal enough to you, snap up the 42.5 and then pick up whatever other lenses the budget allows over time.
     
  14. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    632
    Jan 4, 2014
    Hi Don, I would agree if OP had a camera with ibis, but he doesn't, so if a priority is getting the best pictures in low light, there really is no competition.

    Of course as he mentioned, maybe he is better off buying a camera with good ibis first.

    I should add that while YMMV, to me, the nocticron has been almost magic. The contrast, colors, bokeh is much better than I would have imagined. (I find it quite a bit better than the pl25). In a short while, I have taken probably my 5 favorite pictures of all time with this lens.
     
  15. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    tosvus... I know what you're saying about the Noticron and would certainly enjoy making images with one myself. But for so many people, that amount of expense, when it could be channeled toward more versatile gear, often makes more sense overall. We have to remember, too, that every one of us has different imaging objectives, different skill levels, different budgets, and different knowledge. Thus, there is definitely no single imaging solution that works for all. Unfortunately, some folks have to buy, then sell, and sometimes re-buy particular pieces of gear to arrive where they feel they need to be. As long as the pocketbook isn't suffering... it's all good. And helps keep the economy churning along.

    Keep at it and I may just have to convert my 14/2.5, 17/1.8, and 45/1.8 into a Nocticron! Fortunately, having quite a few m4/3 lenses already, including the 15 and the 25/1.4, I can quite happily give up the 14, 17, and 45 to do the deal, but I'd have to add quite a good few hundred dollars MORE to make the deal happen. Hmmmmm.
     
  16. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    632
    Jan 4, 2014
    I agree 100%. For most people a lens like the Nocticron may not give enough back for what it costs (or it may simply be out of budget). My 2 cents are just based on what OP seems to prioritize (suggested the Nocticron as an option, is very excited about the PL25, would use it for baby photos, and has a camera without IBIS). To me, the Nocticron, based on those factors, makes a strong argument.

    I will also say the 35-100 is a great lens. Not quite as spectacular, but nevertheless very nice image quality, and of course, it is quite versatile. I like to take that out on nature walks and fire away. As for the 12-35, I have not tried it, but people like it. Personally, I would rather get a LX100 to cover the wide to normal focal length. It is small, so I can see on trips/walks, I could just use that for normal, and use the 35-100 on the gh3 for more reach. (so maybe that is an option, based on your hint at budget, RSH, getting the Lx100 and a 35-100 instead of a 12-35 & 35-100). Of course, the lx100 isn't out until next month, but the reviews coming in are pretty stellar.
     
  17. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I think a good argument can be made for the LX100 in place of a body with 12-35. I doubt that the image quality of the LX100 will be equal to a GX7, for example, with the 12-35, but initial observations give good expectations that the IQ from the LX100 is quite good. I agree that using an LX100 for the somewhat wide to middle range and a 35-100 on another body would make an excellent, versatile kit quite suitable to capturing images of one's children and a lot more than that.