1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Lens suggestions?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Grizzle, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. Grizzle

    Grizzle New to Mu-43

    Jan 8, 2013
    This is a very broad set of questions, but I don't exactly know how to narrow it down at this point.

    Background; I've been shooting most of my life, probably 19 years being really into it. I never nerded out much and got into specs/equipment, just shot with what I had. I was looking to upgrade my set up after graduating college, and my enthusiest uncle suggested the Olympus OM-D E-M5, which I purchased along with the Zuiko 12-50mm lens.

    My main questions:
    So I am going on a trip out of the country in March for about 3.5 months. I want to extend my lens choices for the trip, but not sure what I want, and not looking to break the bank. I have a few old lenses from my old Minolta which I think could be used with an adapter, but I don't know really anything about that. I have a Minolta MD W.ROKKOR-X 28mm, a Vivitar 75-205mm, and a Vivitar 135mm Auto Telephoto. I think the best options for those are the 75-205mm or the 28mm, but not sure what adapter would work and if it would be worth it since all settings become manual.

    Second option is to rent a lens, my uncle suggested the Panasonic 35-100mm G Vario, and to rent it from borrowlens.com. At 3.5 months, however, I'm looking at spending around $1000 anyways, so maybe I should just buy a lens?

    Please, any suggestions and ideas would be great! Thank you

  2. Jen726

    Jen726 Mu-43 Rookie

    Sep 18, 2012
    Greg- going to let the pro's take on the adapted lens question since I've never used adapted lenses.

    As for native lenses, if you're up for spending the money, I would say the 35-100mm is going to be amazing for the range/quality/size. I don't have one yet so I can't speak from personal experience, but it seems like a perfect lens. The cheaper option is the Olympus 14-150mm or the Panasonic 14-140mm which would get you more range, especially on the wider side and I think landscape would be important. I guess if I could take only one lens, I would take one of those... However, I think it's f/4-5.6 or something so definitely not versatile at night but for daytime shooting would be really good. And it's a pretty light lens. If you have the money and are willing to dish it out, I would say the 35-100 and a wider lens (like the 14mm or 12mm if you really have extra cash) would be the best duo... but this combo can get pricey.

    I'm looking to sell my 14-150mm if you're looking for one (PM me). Haven't listed it yet, but was planning on it. But in all honesty as an unbiased response, that was the reason I originally bought the 14-150mm but have since then decided to bite the bullet on the 35-100mm. I already have a wide angle to finish off the range. I feel like you'll eventually end up wanting the 35-100 for it's better low-light ability, but it takes awhile to convince yourself (or at least it did for me) to spend that kind of money on a single lens.
  3. Salc64

    Salc64 Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 24, 2012
    New York. USA
    I've said it before and ill say it again . If I only had 1 lense it would be the PL 25. It's fast, great all focal length if I can only have one. The o45 is also great but a bit long if your not outside or in a wide open area. I guess if you told us what you planned on shooting more people will chime in. Also if u plan on putting this camera in your pocket the P14 would be my pick, only because I still haven't had the pleasure of seeing or using the new oly 17mm
  4. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    1. Forget the 28mm, at least for the trip. It offers nothing that isn't coverted by the 12-50 you have.

    2. The 135 and 75-205 are maybes, but are massive compared to something like the Pany 45-200 (a sub-$300 lens) and will be slow and cumbersome to use. If the 135 is an f/2.8 there is some advantage to its shallow DOF. Otherwise the 45-200 will do the job better.

    3. Compared to $1000 to rent for the period, purchasing a lens instead is a bit of a no-brainer.
  5. SkiHound

    SkiHound Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 28, 2012
    I always think it's tough to recommend lenses because so much depends on personal style, what you like to shoot and how you see. Personally, I wouldn't spend close to $1k renting a lens. I've rented lenses for a week or so to try them. But I think you could buy the lens, use it for the trip, and sell when you return for a lot less money. A couple of thoughts: The first lenses I'd think about adding are 1) a large aperture normalish focal length lens, and 2) a longer telephoto. I have the PL25 and it really opens a lot of low light opportunities. Lots of folks like the f1.7 20mm and it's smaller, lighter, and less expensive. And I think you could consider the new 17mm f1.8 in that category. I have the Oly 40-150 and think it's huge value lens. It's small, light, not built that well, relatively inexpensive, and, IMO, offers IQ way better than a lens this light, small, and inexpensive should. You can cover a lot of ground with a 12-50, 40-150, and fast normalish lens.
  6. Ropes4u

    Ropes4u Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 24, 2012
    Where are you going? Naples would require and wide angle for the narrow streets, where as Africa a long reach lens might be better.

    Given you can swing the fast glass, buy it.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.