Lenses to avoid/aren't worth the money

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by TexChappy, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 30, 2012
    If the camera store is open tomorrow I'm going to try to make it down to look. As I start to plan a system based around an OM-D E-M5, I'm looking at what lenses I might want. I know there are some great ones out there - 2,0/12, 1,8/45 from Oly and the Leica'd 1,4/25 from Panny. But what lenses should I avoid? Are there any lenses that aren't worth the money? Any panny lenses that cause a lot of problems with an Oly body?

  2. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
  3. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    Real Name:
    The only thing I know is I sold my P14 2.5 and Oly 14-42II as I wasn't quite satisfied with their outcomes, but I can't say they're not worth the money, because they're quite cheap.
  4. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    I think this is very much an individual thing. Many people are very happy with the 17, for example. To me, the various f/0.95 lenses are not worth the money. But if razor thin DOF is important to you, they might be well worth it.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    May 7, 2012
    Just as many people out there that are happy with Panasonic's 14mm. This is a tough thread to answers.
  6. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Real Name:
    Promit Roy
    The 14-42X seems to be a source of incessant problems. 45-175X is on thin ice too.
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I agree. Other than these two, it's REALLY REALLY hard to go too far wrong with m43 lenses. The standouts are, IMHO:
    8/3.5 (fisheye)
  8. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales

    No 7-14 f4...?
  9. silversx80

    silversx80 Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 27, 2012
    North Carolina
    Pay no attention to this suggestion. The 17/2.8 is a fine lens.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. 0dBm

    0dBm Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 30, 2011
    Western United States
    "...the various f/0.95 lenses are not worth the money."
    Hmmm, there's that word again... I suppose that that phrase can be used as well.

    I have the CS 25mm, f/0.95. The CS 17.5mm, f/0.95 should arrive sometime next week in time for a video shoot in Las Vegas that I have been contracted to do later this month.

    I've been working with the 25mm since November 2011. I have used it for both stills portraits such as headshots, video portraits, and industrial "shorts." The acquisition was high at $900 (used). Two shoots paid for it then, I wrote it off as a business expense.

    I will use the 17.5mm along with the 25mm in Vegas. Another headshot session will pay for the 17.5 then it will also be a 2012 write-off.

    I also used the Oly 45mm, f/1.8 nicely for the headshots; however, the 25mm was better for video. Same for the 17.5mm.

    Worth the money to acquire the f/0.95? I needed and continue to need the low-light gathering capability of that aperture.

    I don't worry about sheer purchase amount. It is the acquisition cost versus the opportunity lost to generate the revenue that I evaluate. If I am contracted to do a shoot that requires minimally distracting the subjects (meaning no video lights or big cameras), then having lenses with great big honking apertures to use with my tiny GH2 vice a Canon 5D or one of those even bigger dedicated videocams is my answer.

    For those having much less stringent or frequent requirements than mine, particularly when there is no revenue to offset the cost, then perhaps it is not "worth it" for them.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. littleMT

    littleMT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 8, 2012
    Real Name:
    Lucille Sanchez
    some of my best shots have come with the 14mm f/2.5, this is my goto lens for car shows and most daytime shots.

    the 14mm is a gem, and can be had on the cheap.
  12. McBob

    McBob Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 22, 2012
    I used my 100-300 on one job, and then never had necessity or inclination to use it again. The Sigma 50-500 wholly supplanted it.

    It's a fine lens, but for my uses wasn't worth it.
  13. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011

    Nice job of selective editing. I said "To me" they're not worth it, after saying this is a highly subjective question.
  14. 0dBm

    0dBm Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 30, 2011
    Western United States
    I suspect that your point is well understood. It's all opinion anyway.
  15. dgorman47

    dgorman47 Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 13, 2012
    Real Name:
    The voitlander 25mm F0.95 is a wonderful lens but its certainly not for everybody. I enjoy it and I'm not making money with my photography. This is a very subjective thing. People love the 45 1.8 and it is a great lens, I just don't like the focal length as much. SO really the lenses that are worth avoiding are.........the ones you don't like :p
  16. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Real Name:
    Thread hijacking time....how is focusing and image quality on the Bigma? Do you use it on an m43 body or an old 4/3 dSLR? Thanks.
  17. LeeOsenton

    LeeOsenton Mu-43 Button Clicker

    Jun 25, 2010
    Hayes, Virginia, U.S.A.
    Real Name:
    Lee Osenton
    I haven't found a M43 lens yet that did not meet my expectations, although some seem priced a bit high for what they are. The Olympus 17mm was my first prime and I learned so much about composition and finding good light with it. I sold it to help fund my Panasonic 14mm and 20mm lenses. I still regret the decision even though the replacements are optically much better. The focal length of the 17mm felt natural to me. The 20mm is not wide enough and the 14mm is too wide.

    Another example is my Panasonic Leica 45mm. The lens is beautiful and beyond reproach, but after only a month of ownership I find I never use it. It is a very expensive lens to store and I am considering selling it. Nothing wrong with the lens; it has exceeded all of my expectations.

    Short version: All M43 lenses I have used had positives that outweighed the negatives, but some just didn't work for me. We are lucky to have such a diverse selection. The lenses that work for one shooter are probably not the same lenses that work for another.

    • Like Like x 1
  18. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 7, 2010
    Kind of a silly thread, as this is a hugely subjective question, but one thing that sort of gets highlighted is how solid the m4/3 lens lineup is. No real slouches in there. Some very good high value options, and some higher end stuff that is exceptional.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    True ... sort of. If you get one without the double-image issue, then it can be a great little lens (for the right application, of course.) So, either buy it used from someone that you trust and has verified that it doesn't have the issue, or buy it from someplace like Amazon that has an easy return/exchange policy.
  20. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    Pretty much this. There isn't anything that is terrible enough to avoid, but everything is some kind of trade off for something else. It just depends on how you shoot and what your goal is.

    Now that I think about it, taking 3rd party lenses out of the equation, has there been any lens that has been universally hated and despised (on any system natively, as of late)? I mean, some we might find useless or overlapping.. but is there anything that seriously is a "do NOT buy this lens!"?