Lens selection for different activities

Wolfman53

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
36
Hello Camera people
This is going to sound a little back to front but I have accumulated a few Mu-43 lens mainly based on reviews without giving much thought to what I am going to use them for!!
I currently have Olympus Zuiko 12-100 pro, 45mm f1 8, 17mm f1.2 pro and Panasonic Leica 8-18mm.
I tend to pick up a couple ar random when going out for the day without giving much thought to which would suit my needs best!!
If you were doing the following activities what would you take with you? I usually grab a couple of lenses typically.
1. Hiking- often coastal paths with harbours and seascapes
2. Hiking - hill walking
3. Parks and Arboretum
4. Strolling around city's- Street photography with occasional church or cathedral interior.

Told you it was back to front!
I would be very interested to hear your views.
Cheers Ladies and Gentlemen
Mike
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,918
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Hello Camera people
This is going to sound a little back to front but I have accumulated a few Mu-43 lens mainly based on reviews without giving much thought to what I am going to use them for!!
I currently have Olympus Zuiko 12-100 pro, 45mm f1 8, 17mm f1.2 pro and Panasonic Leica 8-18mm.
I tend to pick up a couple ar random when going out for the day without giving much thought to which would suit my needs best!!
If you were doing the following activities what would you take with you? I usually grab a couple of lenses typically.
1. Hiking- often coastal paths with harbours and seascapes
2. Hiking - hill walking
3. Parks and Arboretum
4. Strolling around city's- Street photography with occasional church or cathedral interior.

Told you it was back to front!
I would be very interested to hear your views.
Cheers Ladies and Gentlemen
Mike
  1. 12-100
  2. 12-100
  3. 12-100
  4. 12-100
😂 Maybe add the 17 for street
 

WT21

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,291
Location
Boston
I don't see the 45/1.8 for any of your use cases. I also don't see the 17/1.2 for any of your use cases, given your two zooms. For what you do - the two zooms seem like the fit. Personally, I like to have telephoto with me, as well, and would go 8-18 + telephoto, but YMMV.
 

algold

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
520
Location
Israel
Real Name
Alex
Really depends on your style and shooting habits.
1 - 12-100 or 12-100 + 8-18
2, 3 - 12-100
4 - either 12-100, or 8-18 + 17/1.2 + 45/1.8.
 

Egregius V

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
844
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Real Name
Rev. Gregory Vozzo
There are various ways to approach each of the subjects you mention. Hence, a variety of answers.

1. The 12-100 covers this quite well. The primes are good companions when you want more of the background out of focus.
2. The 8-18 has an advantage in wooded areas. And the 12-100 is useful for wildlife. Add the primes if you want a bit more versatility in low light.
3. The 12-100 for general use, primes for close-up photography.
4. The 8-18, definitely - plus the 45mm (ideal for its wide aperture) or the 12-100 (better for its reach).
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,293
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Don't you hate it when you see a subject line and your eyes & brain makes you read something that simply was never typed? When I first glaced at this my brains told me I saw "Lens selection for different cavities" and I will a little worried for you.

I must say for a sort of randomly purchased lens set you got a good selection without much of overlap I think. The 17 and 45 make a very nice prime combo when out and about. 17mm for most stuff and the 45 when you need a bit more focal length. They also both offer a bit more "speed" (light gathering) when the other two lenses might be too slow such as in the evening around town.

I do have to agree with @comment23 that for all your four uses where you don't have something specific you wanted to photograph, the 12-100 pretty much covers them all nicely. Again assuming you don't need to shoot anything moving in lower light where the f4 aperture could be limiting.

I don't have it but I have read nothing but good thing about the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. I almost rented it for a trip to Iceland a couple years back thinking I would benefit from the much wider angles there. But I ended up taking my old 12-60 SWD with me and found the 12mm end to be plenty wide enough for everything. But others on Iceland trips swore by the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. however it might be they were doing a lot more of their shots closer in?

I would say mix it up. Some times take just the 12-100. Sometimes just take the 17+45 primes. And for the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm take that sometimes but throw in the 45mm in case something a bit further off grabs your attention and the 18mm of the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm is simply too short. After a while you should get a feel of what you enjoying most of the time.

EDIT TO ADD: I just looked at your flickr. I noticed the top bunch of shots where with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. Many were racked out to 18mm. Of the 16 (before the wrist watch shots), only 3 were shot at wider than 12mm. If that sampling is any indication of your normal shooting the Oly 12-100 PRO might be better suited to your style over the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm.

EDIT v2: Hey! Where did that 25mm f1.8 come from?
 
Last edited:

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,889
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I routinely use my 12-100 both with and without the FL-LM3 flash to photograph our cats in the living room or on our bed.

With my E-M1 MkII I have no problem ramping the iso to 3200, or even 6400 in the extreme. The camera is relatively noise free at iso 1600 in decent light, so the f/4 is not really a problem.

8315810.JPG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

j_win

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Messages
32
Honestly, these lenses are all relatively small, i just bring everything wherever I go (everything for me is 7-14 pro, 40-150 pro x TC, 12-100 & 17 f1.8). Unless it's just a walk I'll bring the 12-100 typically. But I brought that kit recently on a 10 mile, 4000 ft hike and it wasn't terrible, even with a tripod.

Depending on what you like to shoot I could see a case for almost any of those lenses in every situation.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
402
Location
Canada
My main interest is cityscapes and landscapes so 12-100mm F4 fulfilled most of my needs easy.

45mm F1.8 seems like something that would be good for portraits. Might be an interesting choice for details of the landscape too, including more abstract stuff, but the larger aperture not really needed for that.

17mm F1.2 would be my choice for street photography. More compact and discreet than 12-100mm, and less "distant" than 45mm. Might be okay for landscapes too, the F1.2 aperture allowing for a more dreamy effect.

Ultra-wide like 8-18mm would be my choice for architecture, especially interiors. Practise getting closer to subjects at 8mm, and tilting the lens downward or upward, trying to emphasize depth, placing something in the foreground, using leading lines. Don't stand in one spot and zoom. Set the lens to 8mm and practise moving your feet and use that ability to get closer without losing the ability to fit everything in the frame to your advantage.

I'm not sure about the idea of bringing everything all at once. I am not old but I find E-M1 mk2 + 12-100mm F4 together can sometimes push me close to the limit of late (or maybe it's because of the shoulder that was broken). And I think it is better to set out with a specific purpose for the day, and that means choosing a specific lens or combination of lenses for that purpose. Don't photograph aimlessly or just for the sake of photographing and your photographs will be more interesting.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,819
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I agree with @comment23 that your 12-100 is the choice for most scenarios. If you had a PL 12-60 f2.8-4, I'd pick that for most of your uses because I prefer smaller with less reach for the uses you mentioned. But if you can handle the size, the 12-100 is obviously more versatile.
 

Wolfman53

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
36
Don't you hate it when you see a subject line and your eyes & brain makes you read something that simply was never typed? When I first glaced at this my brains told me I saw "Lens selection for different cavities" and I will a little worried for you.

I must say for a sort of randomly purchased lens set you got a good selection without much of overlap I think. The 17 and 45 make a very nice prime combo when out and about. 17mm for most stuff and the 45 when you need a bit more focal length. They also both offer a bit more "speed" (light gathering) when the other two lenses might be too slow such as in the evening around town.

I do have to agree with @comment23 that for all your four uses where you don't have something specific you wanted to photograph, the 12-100 pretty much covers them all nicely. Again assuming you don't need to shoot anything moving in lower light where the f4 aperture could be limiting.

I don't have it but I have read nothing but good thing about the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. I almost rented it for a trip to Iceland a couple years back thinking I would benefit from the much wider angles there. But I ended up taking my old 12-60 SWD with me and found the 12mm end to be plenty wide enough for everything. But others on Iceland trips swore by the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. however it might be they were doing a lot more of their shots closer in?

I would say mix it up. Some times take just the 12-100. Sometimes just take the 17+45 primes. And for the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm take that sometimes but throw in the 45mm in case something a bit further off grabs your attention and the 18mm of the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm is simply too short. After a while you should get a feel of what you enjoying most of the time.

EDIT TO ADD: I just looked at your flickr. I noticed the top bunch of shots where with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm. Many were racked out to 18mm. Of the 16 (before the wrist watch shots), only 3 were shot at wider than 12mm. If that sampling is any indication of your normal shooting the Oly 12-100 PRO might be better suited to your style over the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm.

EDIT v2: Hey! Where did that 25mm f1.8 come from?
 

Wolfman53

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
36
Thanks. You are correct. I have the 25mm f1.8 which I will be moving on as I have ordered the 17mm f1.2.
I have analysed my usage over the last couple of years and I have taken lots of shots in the 15 to 18mm range hence the decision to get the 17 f1.2.
I have also thought of moving the 8-18mm on also, but I think it may be useful for architecture. I have taken some nice seascapes at 8mm too.
 

SpecFoto

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
788
Location
So Cal Desert
Real Name
Jim
I don't see the 45/1.8 for any of your use cases. I also don't see the 17/1.2 for any of your use cases, given your two zooms. For what you do - the two zooms seem like the fit. Personally, I like to have telephoto with me, as well, and would go 8-18 + telephoto, but YMMV.
Ouch! Said most prime shooters. :laugh: The 17mm f1.2 is the BEST lens for street and to complement it, the 45 f1.8 is perfect. And shooting inside a cathedral or church an f/1.2 lens is going to give you 3 and 1/2 stops more light vs a f4 zoom, meaning you can shoot 3-1/2 stop of ISO less, thus less noise.
 
Last edited:

PhotoCal

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
392
This is why GAS is harmful to the consumer.

I wouldn't approach this by the activities.
I'd determine what images you hope to take and how much gear you want to carry.
 

Wolfman53

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
36
My main interest is cityscapes and landscapes so 12-100mm F4 fulfilled most of my needs easy.

45mm F1.8 seems like something that would be good for portraits. Might be an interesting choice for details of the landscape too, including more abstract stuff, but the larger aperture not really needed for that.

17mm F1.2 would be my choice for street photography. More compact and discreet than 12-100mm, and less "distant" than 45mm. Might be okay for landscapes too, the F1.2 aperture allowing for a more dreamy effect.

Ultra-wide like 8-18mm would be my choice for architecture, especially interiors. Practise getting closer to subjects at 8mm, and tilting the lens downward or upward, trying to emphasize depth, placing something in the foreground, using leading lines. Don't stand in one spot and zoom. Set the lens to 8mm and practise moving your feet and use that ability to get closer without losing the ability to fit everything in the frame to your advantage.

I'm not sure about the idea of bringing everything all at once. I am not old but I find E-M1 mk2 + 12-100mm F4 together can sometimes push me close to the limit of late (or maybe it's because of the shoulder that was broken). And I think it is better to set out with a specific purpose for the day, and that means choosing a specific lens or combination of lenses for that purpose. Don't photograph aimlessly or just for the sake of photographing and your photographs will be more interesting.
Thanks.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
I was thinking 17mm for street and carry 8-18mm tor when required - churches and architecture.
Then probably the two zooms for hiking.
The 45 is a great little portrait lens but I have been known to use it around city street scenes too.
As you say, I think I have to be creative and try different things with each lens.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,238
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
I use the 17/1.8 (mostly) and 45/1.8 for street. Both tiny. I can carry the camera in my hand for hours (either my 1.3 or 5.3) With these, and the other can go in a pocket or hip bag.

I took the 12-100 and 17/1.8 on our last long trip, a month in Southeast Asia. I bought the 12-100 for that trip and used it all day every day for general sightseeing. The 17 was, again, for street especially in the evenings.

For hiking I find the 12-100 too big and heavy, and prefer my 12-35/2.8.

I've considerEd the 1.2 lenses. The 17 is too big and adds little to my use case, where I wouldn’t shoot Street at 1.2 anyway. The 45 could be useful for my theater and show photography, but there hasn’t been any of that since January.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,889
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
That's the scariest thing I've ever encountered on this forum - 352 cats! Yikes!! (I'm allergic to cats) :hide:
:rofl:

Ailurophobia is OK in the case of allergy, Rich.

I'm extremely allergic to a lot of things. Eggs, for example. Who would have thought that general anaesthetics are made from eggs ...

I'm only slightly allergic to cats and dogs, unlike horse protein. Snakebite antivenene has horse protein in it ...

A good friend thought she was allergic to our cat. The cat died at 18y3m. Years later, our friend was still having the allergic reaction. She was allergic to animal dander - mine! From my beard ...

It's a funny old world ;) .
 
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom